The Workers' Advocate



Volume 9, Number 3

March 29, 1979 25¢

P.O. BOX 11942 CHICAGO, IL. 60611

[Front page:

Teamsters Prepare for Struggle Against Wage Controls;

Mao Tsetung Thought Is Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist;


Carter's Middle East "Peace" Treaty Is an Act of Aggression Against the Arab Peoples]

In this issue

Lay-offs and Overtime...................................................... 3
Productivity Drive in Auto............................................... 3
Lettuce Strike.................................................................... 4
American Insulated Wire Strike....................................... 4
Carter's Budget................................................................. 6
Carter's Wage Controls..................................................... 7
No! To the Draft!.............................................................. 7
Mexican Workers.............................................................. 4
The West Indian Voice...................................................... 5
Black Youth Unemployment............................................ 5
Racist Attacks................................................................... 5
Self-exposure of Courts.................................................... 5
"Police Brutality".............................................................. 5
Attacks on Iranian Students.............................................. 11
The Iranian Revolution..................................................... 10
Brazil................................................................................ 8
Nicaragua.......................................................................... 8
Chinese Aggression Against Vietnam............................... 2
Chinese Revisionists and Latin America.......................... 8
Year of Stalin.................................................................... 13
RCP of Britain (M-L)....................................................... 9
"CP(M-L)" Supports Chinese Aggression........................ 2
DOES THE "RCP,USA" OPPOSE THE "THREE WORLDS" THEORY? Part 2........................... 14
AGAINST SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC INFILTRATION OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST MOVEMENT................................................................... 16
Revolutionary Rally to Defend Marxism-Leninism and Proletarian Internationalism...................................... 20

[Corrections sheet:


1) On page 19, column 2, paragraph 6, lines 6-8, in the continuation of the article "Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement", the sentence reading: "Weisberg and Schurmann were both associate fellows of IPS as well as co-directors of the BAI." is replaced with: "Weisberg was both an associate fellow of IPS as well as a co-director of the BAI."

2) On page 9, the following corrections are made to the article "Interview with the Delegation of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)":

a) Column 1, paragraph 5, line 33, which reads: "...all other major questions, through its organs of work... "

is replaced with: "... all other major questions, through its two years of work... "

b) Column 2, beginning from the top, delete the first 17 lines (including line 17 which reads:

"...tries which participated in the conference, took the... "), and replace with the following:

service to being anti-revisionist, on all the major questions they followed from the outset a basic neo-revisionist line, such as their promotion of economism in the economic struggles of the workers; their labelling political struggles as a "diversion from the economic struggle"; their opposition to building a genuine Bolshevik Party; their vacillating stand towards modern revisionism; their glorification of the British bourgeois trade unions; their basic great-power chauvinism; and their opposition to sound Marxist-Leninist theory.

In August 1967, in London, the Historic Necessity for Change Conference was held. The advanced sections of the revolutionary youth and student movement, the Internationalists, of Ireland, of Canada, of America, together with the revolutionary sections of England, held this conference on the question of rebuilding the revolutionary centers, of working for the victory of the revolution and socialism and of opposing the opportunism of all hues which had come up during this period. All the groups and organizations in Britain which called themselves anti-revisionists were invited to this conference. During this conference, the most sharp struggle took place between the genuinely revolutionary forces, represented by the Internationalists, and the so-called "anti-revisionist" elements. At this conference, these elements maintained that the working class was bourgeoisified, that the rising revolutionary movement of the youth and students was exclusively petty-bourgeois and not working class, that the time was not ripe to build the Party, that more theoretical work still had to be done and more theoretical questions still had to be answered, and that it was necessary to carry out more theoretical work and wage further factional struggles before any revolutionary work could be done in the country. They seriously opposed the whole spirit and movement of the Internationalists, who represented a vigorous revolutionary force, at that time coming from the youth and student movement within Ireland, Canada, America and England, and who were objectively leading the struggle against imperialism and revisionism. And through the workings of the Necessity for Change Conference, it became pitifully clear that in Britain there was no force that was capable or willing to take up the task of rebuilding the Marxist-Leninist center, rebuilding the revolutionary center. And it was at this conference that the English revolutionaries, together with the Internationalists of the other countries which participated in the conference, took the...

c) Column 2, paragraph 2, line 49, which now reads: Marxist-Leninist face of these groups and organiza-..."

is replaced with: "Marxist-Leninist" face of these groups and organiza-

d) Column 3, first full paragraph, lines 17 through 23, which read: "As a basic Marxist- Leninist principle, the proletariat must be in the leader ship in the revolution, plus the fact that in Britain the industrial proletariat, the working class, is a very large percentage of the population and the crucial task of the Party is to build itself right in the heart of the working class, in the factories and other work places of the country."

is replaced with: "Since, as a basic Marxist-Leninist principle, the proletariat must be the leader of the revolution and moreover, since in Britain the industrial proletariat, the working class, represents a very large percentage of the population, the crucial task of the Party is to build itself right in the heart of the working class, in the factories and other work places of the country."

e) Column 3, paragraph 2, lines 9 through 14, which read: "... class and the working people's movement, to further arm the working class with the Party's line, and to guide its struggles against monopoly capital along the path of revolution, towards the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat."

are replaced with: "...class and the working people's movement, to further arm the working- class with the revolutionary ideology of Marxism-Leninism, to further arm the working class with the Party's line, and to guide its struggles against monopoly capital along the path of revolution, towards the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat."

f) Column 3, paragraph 6, lines 1 through 7, which read: "The economic crisis hitting the British monopoly capitalist ruling class is most severe, and every attempt that is made to solve the crisis and maintain its vast super-profits leads to ever greater, broader and deeper crisis in a very short period of time. The only solution that the reactionary bourgeoisie has to try to solve this crisis is to make the working... "

are replaced with: "As a result of the intensifying contradictions which are inherent in the British monopoly capitalist system, the economic crisis hitting the British monopoly capitalist ruling class is most severe, and every attempt that is made to solve the crisis leads to ever greater, broader and deeper crisis in a very short period of time. The only solution that the reactionary bourgeoisie has to try to solve this crisis and maintain its vast super-profits is to make the working..."

g) Column 4, paragraph 1, line 25, which reads: "on pickets, etc. Secondly, you see increasing legis-..."

is replaced with: "... on pickets, or those who simply go about their daily lives, etc. Secondly, you see increasing legis-... "]

Teamsters Prepare for Struggle Against Wage Controls

Mao Tsetung Thought Is Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist


Carter's Middle East "Peace" Treaty Is an Act of Aggression Against the Arab Peoples


Down With Chinese Social-Imperialism's Savage Aggression Against Viet Nam!

The "CP(M-L)" Social-Chauvinists are Brazen Lackeys of Imperialism


Increased "Worker Productivity" Means Speedup, Job Combinations and Overtime

Chrysler's Productivity Drive:


Workers Win Strike in Defiance of Wage Controls at American Insulated Wire

Farmworkers Defy Carter's Wage Controls and Persist in Struggle

Mexican Workers Demonstrate Against Attacks by Immigration Service

The Essence of "Police Brutality" Is Racism and Growing Fascism


Another Racist Attack on a Black Youth

Recent Court Decisions -- A Self-Exposure

Record Unemployment for the Black Youth

Wage Controls Are the Centerpiece of Carter's "Fight Against Inflation"

No! To Re-Introduction of the Draft!

Carter's "Anti-Inflation'' Budget: Starve the People and Prepare for War

Chinese Revisionists Extend Collaboration with the Fascist Regimes of Latin America

New Fraudulent Maneuver of Brazilian Reaction

Nicaraguan People Oppose the Somoza Dictatorship


The Iranian Working Class Came Out on the Battlefield, Overthrew the Shah and Shook the Capitalist World

Statement of the Workers' and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran


U.S. Authorities Launch Savage Attacks Against Iranian Students


The Work of J.V. Stalin Is Immortal



Reference material on the social-democratic infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist movement

From the Writings of Barry Weisberg

Revolutionary Rally in Defense of the Purity of Marxism-Leninism and the Principles of Proletarian Internationalism!

Teamsters Prepare for Struggle Against Wage Controls

A big trial of strength between the working class and the monopoly capitalists is developing as the contract of 300,000 Teamsters Union truck drivers with the trucking industry nears expiration on March 31. The truck drivers are preparing for a struggle to resist the attempts of the capitalist state to impose a big wage cut on them by compelling the workers to accept a wage and benefits increase of only 7% in their new contract. The Carter administration, in cahoots with the sold-out Teamsters Union officials, is pressuring the truck drivers to capitulate to the government's "voluntary" wage/benefit limit of 7%. This would amount to a huge wage cut in the face of the soaring rate of inflation of 10% for 1978 (and the 15.4% annual rate for February 1979). If this were to occur, it would result in a big decline in the workers ' earnings and standard of living, and a huge increase in the profits of the capitalists.

The coming showdown between the truck drivers and the Carter administration will be a highly significant struggle for the entire proletariat. The contracts of hundreds of thousands of workers in the rubber, garment, electrical, auto and other major industries also will expire between now and September. If the truck drivers' struggle succeeds in smashing through Carter's Phase II "voluntary" wage standards and achieves a substantial increase in wages and benefits, it will provide a tremendous example and inspiration for the workers who will be confronting Carter's wage controls in the months to follow.

Carter's hatchet man, Albert E. Kahn, Chairman of the Council on Wage and Price Stability (COWPS), recognized this fact when he stated on March 21 that, "The program itself is on trial, the whole concept of voluntary controls is on trial." Quaking in his boots, Kahn added, referring to the Teamsters: "If any major union settled for 14% instead of 7%, it's going to be injurious, make it hard for the unions down the pike to settle within standards. It's obvious also, and this is the message that is the most important, that any (such) settlement really is or will be an act of aggression against the American people..."

With this type of extravagant language, the politicians of the monopoly capitalist class are browbeating the truck drivers and other workers with the nonsense that their wages are too high, that these wages are the source of inflation and rising prices, and that for the workers to resist a huge wage cut amounts to "an act of aggression against the American people". Carter's gang shouts that the workers should gladly accept wage cuts and sacrifice for Carter's supposed "fight against inflation". But the capitalist billionaires are not fighting against inflation in the slightest. Instead they are viciously fighting against the workers themselves, against their wages and well-being. They are fighting to increase their profits and further gorge themselves on the sweat and blood of the working class.

The main issue in the struggle of the truck drivers is wages. On one side stand the workers who are fighting for a large pay increase to resist the effects of rampant inflation on their real income. To simply stay even with inflation in the first year of their contract, the workers, in light of the present annual inflation rate of 15.4%, are striving for the maximum wage and benefit increase possible, and for a cost-of-living adjustment formula that would compensate them for any further rise in the inflation rate. On the other side stands the trucking industry and the monopoly capitalist state, which is trying to impose a 7% limit on their wages, fringe benefits and COLA increase.

However, in light of today's skyrocketing prices and the reports of record corporate profits, even "anti-inflation" warrior Kahn was forced to admit on March 13 that to try to hold the Teamsters to the 7% pay standard amounts "to asking labor to settle for what looks like a decline in real income"o Brilliant arithmetic. And Teamster negotiator and vice president Roy Williams complained recently that the prices and profits statistics make it difficult for him and his fellow sell-out artists to accept the 7% limit because "our members can read too".

Thus, caught between their desire to obey Carter's guidelines and the difficulty of doing so in the face of the workers' "enlightenment" about the real situation, Teamster bosses had to submit contract demands that violate Carter's guidelines.

According to reports the Teamsters demanded a 75¢ an hour increase in wages for the first year of a three-year contract, 50¢ an hour in the last two years, a 50% increase in their COLA formula and a $30 a week increase in fringe benefits. This amounts to a 35% total wage/benefits increase over three years, of which 14-15% occurs in the first year. While these demands are above Carter's 7% total wage/benefits guideline, they nevertheless are still quite modest. The trucking industry countered with their proposal for 65¢ an hour increase in wages in the first year, 10¢ an hour in the last two years, and a COLA formula of their own. This amounts to a 17-1/2% total wage/benefit increase over the three years. This is a ridiculous proposal deserving nothing but contempt.

The Teamsters have also justly demanded a 58¢ an hour cost-of-living catch up payment to be added on to the first year's wages beginning April 1, as part of the provisions of their previous contract. The Teamster Union officials are asking that the government not compute this 58¢ increase as part of the 7% limit on wages and benefits. This is a graphic example of the entire attitude of the Teamster hacks in the negotiations, an attitude of extreme respect for Carter's "voluntary" wage guidelines. Instead of boldly mobilizing the truck drivers to defy Carter's wage controls, they quietly and submissively request that the government do the workers a favor here and there, in an attempt to spread passivity and servility to the capitalist state in the ranks of the truck drivers.

Fitzsimmons also politely asked the government to stretch the guidelines to allow the truck drivers various fringe benefit increases over and above the 7% limit. One such fringe benefit increase speaks volumes about the corrupt, capitalist nature of the Teamsters Union bureaucrats. Federal law requires that the trucking companies must significantly increase their pension contribution to guarantee the solvency of the Teamsters ' Central States Pension Fund which has been looted unmercifully by dirty hands in the cookie jar. Fitzsimmons asked the government for an exemption from the wage guidelines to accommodate these "higher costs".

But despite the polite and submissive tone of the labor lieutenants, the Carter administration has refused to show any benevolence and has not relaxed their "voluntary" guidelines. This has set the stage for a big showdown. The Teamster truck drivers, who have never been known for politeness towards the bourgeoisie and who certainly,are not submissive in the slightest, who are militant and strong in numbers, will never submit to the kind of outright robbery that the rich capitalist thieves intend to pull off.

To "persuade" the truck drivers to sacrifice, tighten their belts and accept a wage cut, the Carter administration is not relying on the treachery and deception of their bought and paid-for union officials alone. They are also desperately waving the big stick of the law, police, courts and jails at the workers as well. 1) Carter has vowed to seek a court injunction against a strike, and a Taft-Hartley injunction is reportedly being prepared; 2) the administration is shouting that it will consider ways of dealing with any violence that may erupt, i. e. is considering how to violently suppress the truck drivers; 3) Carter, along with that darling of the labor aristocracy Ted Kennedy, and others, is pushing for deregulation of the trucking industry, allegedly to only increase price competition, but also quite transparently to increase the proportion of non-union drivers, to increase competition among the workers and to attack the ability of the truck drivers to organize against the bourgeoisie. And besides this threat against the workers, Kahn has 4) threatened the trucking companies that the Interstate Commerce Commission might not allow them to raise their rates (and profits) corresponding to any wage and benefits increase over the 7% guideline. The Carter administration is trying to assist the capitalists and stiffen their backbone to resist the just demands of the truck drivers.

In the midst of all of these "very intimidating" threats and bluster on the part of the government, the truck drivers are calmly and eagerly getting prepared for struggle. Recently they overwhelmingly sanctioned strike action for April 1 if an agreement acceptable to themselves has not been reached by that time.

The 300,000 truck drivers occupy a strategic position in the economy and the freight they haul cannot be halted for more than a day or two without crippling all sorts of commercial and industrial activities. For example, a nationwide strike could force a near-total shutdown of the auto industry in one week, while supermarkets would virtually run out of basic staples in that time period. A strike would be a big blow to the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and to Carter's wage controls. And, should the truck drivers successfully defy the wage guidelines and achieve a respectable wage and benefits increase, it would arouse the militancy and fighting spirit of the hundreds of thousands of other industrial workers facing similar struggles against the capitalist state in the next few months. In addition, 700,000 other trucking company employees not included in the Master Freight Agreement presently being negotiated, generally pattern their contracts after this one. This includes 65,000 United Parcel Service Teamsters also negotiating for a new contract at this time. Thus the Teamsters can play a very significant exemplary role for the entire working class by fighting to defend their basic interests in the coming days and weeks.


Carter's wage controls are part of the fascist offensive of the rich to make the workers bear the burden of the economic crisis. Not only is the capitalist state attempting to suppress the workers' movement, cut wages and fatten their profits, but it is stepping up preparations to intensify its attacks through mandatory wage controls. Keeping pace with these escalating attacks on the working class are the treacherous activities of the labor aristocrats who work hand-in- glove with the fascist offensive of the bourgeoisie.

There is only one conclusion that the workers can draw from these facts. They too must step up their struggles. Comrade workers! Defy Carter's wage controls and wage vigorous mass struggle to defend your basic interests. End.

[Back to Top]

Mao Tsetung Thought Is Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist

The following resolution was unanimously and enthusiastically passed at an internal conference of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists in March 1979, a conference attended by all comrades working under the discipline of the COUSML: "... the March, 1979 Internal Conference of the COUSML resolutely denounces Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought as anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist." This resolution was the result of a long period of study and discussion inside the organization. In June 1978 the National Committee took up the question of various formulations, such as Mao Tsetung Thought. The National Committee set forth the task of assessing the whole course of the struggle against modern revisionism and of looking into the origins of the theory of "three worlds". Part of this was the assessment of the role of Mao Tsetung and of the Communist Party of China. The whole COUSML began internal discussions on the assessment of the course of the struggle against modern revisionism following the publication of the July 29th Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and Government of China.

The COUSML approaches the question of Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought from the point of view of the assessment of the whole course and history of the struggle against modern revisionism. The COUSML assesses the course of this struggle solely in order to defend the purity of Marxism-Leninism and to wage the struggle against modern revisionism more powerfully and consistently. It is the struggle against social-chauvinism and the all-round intensification of the struggle against modern revisionism that has resulted in the exposure of Chinese revisionism and Mao Tsetung Thought. Chinese revisionism presented itself as part of the movement against Khrushchovite revisionism and all its variants. But the facts show that the Communist Party of China did not proceed from the sound positions of Marxism- Leninism in its criticisms of the Soviet revisionists and that the Chinese leadership promoted its own revisionist theories and had a corrosive and disruptive effect or the great historical movement against modern revisionism. Finally Chinese revisionism and Mac Tsetung Thought led China and the Communist Party of China to an utter fiasco when the Chinese "third road" collapsed into social-imperialist warmongering and open alliance with U.S. imperialism.

Right from the start, the COUSML pointed out that the emergence of open social-chauvinism in the form of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" was not an accident, but that it had deep longstanding roots and stemmed from the long corrosion of opportunism inside the Marxist-Leninist movement. In the September 1976 issue of The Workers' Advocate. the COUSML denounced the alliance of the October League (now the "CP(ML)") with U.S. imperialism in the article "Mao Tsetung Thought or Social-Chauvinism, A Comment on the October League's Call for Unity of Marxist-Leninists'" (in the title of the article, one should read "Marxism-Leninism" in place of "Mao Tsetung Thought" -- at that time we still believed that Mao Tsetung upheld Marxism-Leninism and was fighting against the Chinese revisionists and all modern revisionists). In that article, we pointed to the splittist and liquidationist activities of the diehard OL social-chauvinist leaders right from their work against the youth and student movement of the 1960's to the present (p. 8). One section of the article was written on the theme that "The OL's social- chauvinism in the face of the war danger is only a natural outgrowth of their neo-revisionist line on class struggle and proletarian revolution in the U.S." (p. 33). In The Workers' Advocate of March 10, 1977, which gives the call "U.S. Marxist-Leninists, Unite in Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism!", it is stressed that "The rise of open social-chauvinism is not an accident. Conditions have been prepared for it by the long corrosion of neo-revisionism... inside the Marxist-Leninist movement. " (p. 1). The paper connects the denunciation of the theory of "three worlds" and of open social-chauvinism with the necessity of carrying through a thorough repudiation of Browderism and modern revisionism and with the clarification of political line on the burning questions of the American revolution. Thus the COUSML constantly stressed that the class treason of the "three worlders" and the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists should not be viewed in isolation, but that the deep roots of the class betrayal should be uncovered and repudiated.

It is the same with Chinese revisionism. The present U.S.-China warmongering alliance and the rule in China of the most fascist elements, such as Teng Hsiao-ping, is not an isolated accident, an unfortunate thunderbolt coming from the unknown. No, Chinese revisionism has its deep roots. In June 1978 the National Committee took up the task of assessing the history of the struggle against modern revisionism and of looking into the origins of the theory of "three worlds". As a result of this study into the longstanding roots of the theory of "three worlds", the National Committee came to the conclusion in February 1979 that Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are anti-Marxist-Leninist. It was Mao Tsetung Thought that corroded the Communist Party of China from within, that put forward a number of specific revisionist theories, that negated the universal laws of Marxism-Leninism and that thus provided the basis for the wild factionalism, unprincipled eclecticism, constant 'zig-zags in policy, and the various revisionist groupings within the Communist Party of China. The Communist Party of China put forward the pretext that Mao Tsetung Thought developed in the struggle against modern revisionism, but actually Mao Tsetung Thought springs from the 1930's as a "Chinese form (revision) of Marxism" while the Communist Party of China vacillated repeatedly in the struggle against Titoite and Khrushchovite revisionism.

The March 1979 Internal Conference of the COUSML unanimously condemned Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought. Below we reproduce a section of a speech delivered at the Internal Conference. This extract, edited for publication, outlines the grounds upon which the COIJSML condemns Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought. The COUSML will continue and deepen the repudiation of Mao Tsetung Thought as part of the crucial struggle against modern revisionism.

* * * *


Mao Tsetung was anti-Marxist-Leninist and revisionist. He began as a progressive revolutionary democrat and he played an important role in the triumph of the Chinese democratic anti-imperialist revolution. But he was an eclectic who opposed the Marxist theses. As the leader of the Communist Party of China, he therefore opposed Marxism- Leninism and was anti-Marxist-Leninist.

His actual theses were eclectic combinations of all sorts of opportunist and revisionist ideas of all trends, and even including ancient Chinese philosophy. He-sought to impose this on the Communist Party of China through the theory of developing an "Asian communism", and he displayed xenophobia towards the rest of the world, including towards the world proletariat. "Mao Tsetung Thought" and the use by the Chinese Communist Party of the term "Mao Tsetung Thought" in fact dates back to the 1930's, and it was developed as a "Chinese form of Marxism", i.e., a Chinese revision of Marxism. With this "national Marxism" Mao Tsetung tried to take a middle road between imperialism and socialism. But no such road is possible. As a result, damage was done to :he liberation movement before 1949 and especially Tier- 1949 When the Chinese revolution was prevented from going over to the Socialist stage. Although some measures of socialist transformation did take place, as a result of "Mao Tsetung Thought", China did not develop socialism and was kept in a chaotic situation oh all fronts. Eventually this third road collapsed altogether and gave rise to capitulation to world imperialism and to the emergence of China as a social-imperialist power. From a force fighting U.S. imperialism, China turned to an alliance with U.S. imperialism. The U.S. -China alliance has been Under preparation since 1971, and as part of this Map Tsetung personally greeted Nixon twice, the second time in 1976 after the fascist war criminal Nixon had fallen from power and even the pretext of the needs of international diplomacy did not exist.

"Mao Tsetung Thought" has been the basis for all the deviations of the Communist Party of China. It was "Mao Tsetung Thought" that corroded the Communist Party of China, prevented it from establishing a sound Marxist-Leninist basis and thus provided the basis for all the Chinese revisionist groupings. It is "Mao Tsetung. Thought" that is the basis of "three worlds-ism".


One of the greatest difficulties in assessing the. life and work of Mao Tsetung and the line and history of the Chinese Communist Party is that the Communist Party of China has consistently withheld information on the actual state of affairs in China, on the theories of Mao Tsetung and the line of the Communist Party of China, and has developed various ways and forms of creating a great mystery about what was going on in China -- in the Party, in the state and in the economy.

One example of this is the case of Lin Piao. When he died, his death was not written about in Peking Review. This was not for reasons of state secrecy, as all sorts of bourgeois visitors were informed of his death. But. it never was announced in Party channels, As a result, we upheld that Lin Piao was alive because it was simply unimaginable to us that such a thing would not be mentioned in Party literature and instead simply broadcast to all visiting bourgeoisie. Further consultation has revealed that we weren't the only Party which had difficulties on this front.

When we began research on China, we ran into this immediately. Even the simplest questions are shrouded in mystery. For example, which units own the land in the Chinese communes. It seems that land and the means of production are owned in China's countryside by very small units, even smaller than the commune, but discussion on this and on its significance is lacking in Chinese economic literature. What is the actual State of ownership of the means of production, what happened to the bourgeois class, etc., etc. ? No discussion of this takes place. We have only found one or two articles that even approach the discussion of such matters. Often the only sources on China are bourgeois sources or by inference.

Party affairs are in a similar shape. The last Party Congress which gave a detailed description of the line of the Party was the Eighth Congress, which was well-known as a revisionist Congress. After that, the Congresses do not describe the state of affairs in the Party or the line. Instead one receives various propaganda formulas or even six word quotations from Mao Tsetung quoted out of context. Great debates can be waged on such formulations. Each person is left to put his own meaning into these words. "Mao Tsetung Thought" is promoted by the Communist Party of China as the Marxism-Leninism of the era, but few writings by Mao Tsetung after 1949 have been officially published.

The theory of two headquarters in the Party is closely related to this veil of mystery. Every crime of the Party is attributed to the bourgeois headquarters on a totally arbitrary basis. Thus it becomes impossible to objectively figure out the line and a full field is left open for rampant speculation.

This mystery and chaos was encouraged by the Chinese Communist Party which went quite far in using elaborate methods to foster it. Therefore, Mao Tsetung's views and life cannot be evaluated solely from his writings.


In practice Mao Tsetung was a pragmatist and an eclectic. In philosophical theory, Mao Tsetung also developed a number of erroneous theories on dialectics. One important thing, was that he regarded the transformation of opposites simply as a change in place. Thus, consider the example of the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Mao Tsetung regarded the socialist revolution simply as a change of place, as the proletariat going from the subordinate aspect of the contradiction to the dominant aspect, and the bourgeoisie going from the ruling class to the ruled class. He negated the fact that socialist revolution involves the elimination of the exploiting classes and a qualitative change of the phenomenon. In this way he opposed the Marxist-Leninist view of revolution and substituted evolutionist views.

In fact, Mao Tsetung regarded revolution itself as just an endless process, as a cycle repeated eternally. It goes from victory to defeat to victory, never raising to a higher level but eternally repeating itself. His quotation (Peking Review, No. 21, 1976, p. 9) on the need for revolution 10,000 years from now because junior officials etc. will always feel slighted by big shots is typical.

This is related to his view that the exploiting classes are never eliminated under socialism, under the pretext that the existence of class struggle in socialist Society implies the. existence of the exploiting classes. It is also related to his view that the class struggle inside the party, the struggle against revisionism, implies the existence of two headquarters.

Mao Tsetung also arbitrarily imposes formal opposites onto every situation. He speculates on thousands of different contradictions, logical contradictions, and imposes them on the world. Thus idealist sophistry replaces materialist dialectics.


Mao Tsetung was opposed to the hegemonic role of the party of the proletariat. He advocated "longterm coexistence and mutual supervision" between the Communist Party of China and the bourgeois parties in China in "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People". Thus he opposed the undivided leadership of the proletariat and its party. The existence of the bourgeois parties was presented as inevitable right up until communism, for as long as the Communist Party would exist.

In practice he used the army as the arbiter between factions in the Communist Party of China. In the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the Party and the mass organizations were dispersed by millions of non-party youth at the call of Mao Tsetung, and the army was also called in.

Mao Tsetung also displayed contempt for the Party in many ways. The norms of the Party were constantly violated and subordinated to his personal power. Line was constantly changed. For example, the Eighth Congress gives one line, then Mao Tsetung wrote "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" and gave a different line-- or, to be precise, grafted on a new line eclectically to the formulations of the Eighth Congress. Subsequently another sitting of the Eighth Party Congress took place. The Party Congress apparently found it entirely ordinary that the Party should give one line and the Party Chairman a different line, and neither endorses Mao's views, nor condemns Mao's deviation, but simply continues giving another line.

Mao Tsetung's factionalism was especially revealed in his theory of the existence of two headquarters in the party, with representatives of these headquarters existing in every body from the central committee and political bureau, right down to every organization at the base. This is a theory of unbridled factionalism and of destroying the party's monolithic unity. It presents itself as a theory to fight revisionism, but actually it is a theory to coexist with revisionism.


Mao Tsetung downplayed the role of the proletariat. With his theory of encircling the city from the countryside he advocated the hegemonic role of the peasantry. This thesis, presented as simply a description of a military situation where the main base is in the countryside, is not true as a universal pattern and is used as a cover for definite theories negating the role and hegemony of the proletariat and the role of the cities in the revolution. In the Chinese revolution, although at the beginning the Communist Party of China had undivided leadership of the proletariat and great strength in the cities, by the liberation of China in 1949 the situation was so bad in the cities and in the proletariat that Mao Tsetung himself describes that the Communist Party of China was at a loss to find cadres for the cities. Therefore Mao Tsetung turns to the army for the cadres for the city. Even if this is accepted as an unfortunate peculiarity of the situation in China due to devastating setbacks in the cities, this would not explain or justify Mao Tsetung's theories since, a) the Communist Party of China does not in any of its literature regard it as at all out of the ordinary that the proletariat was not organized and the cities not organized, and b) it prescribes this pattern to all other countries.


Mao Tsetung puts forward the view that there is a long period of capitalist economic development needed between the victory of the democratic anti-imperialist revolution and the stage of the socialist revolution. Although this view was later ascribed to Liu Shao-chi, in fact it is the theory of Mae Tsetung who developed it in his works on the question. In this way the transition of the Chinese revolution from liberation in 1949 to the socialist revolution was stopped.

Under this theory a conciliatory attitude was taken to the exploiting classes. The bourgeoisie was allowed to maintain its positions in the state apparatus. And it maintained economic positions as well.

We always took the theory of new democratic revolution to be the basic Marxist theses on national liberation and on the national liberation movement being part of the world proletarian socialist revolution. However the actual theory of Mao Tsetung was that of the great barrier between the democratic and socialist revolutions.

At first, the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung stated that the new democratic state was hot. the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later on, the Chinese new democratic state was simply redefined by the Chinese Communist Party as the dictatorship of the proletariat without any fundamental change being made in the state. In the Cultural Revolution the existence of the bourgeois parties was ignored in the documents, but they continued to exist. There was never any discussion in the Chinese literature on this change of definition, which appears to be just that -- a change of definition -- and not a transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The theory of capitalist economic development under the new democratic state is simply replaced by the theory that the bourgeois parties and the bourgeoisie will exist throughout the entire epoch of socialism and under the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Mao Tsetung had a conciliatory and favorable stand towards the exploiting classes. This is revealed in many ways. For example, he advocated the "longterm coexistence and mutual supervision" of the bourgeois parties with the communist party and the bourgeoisie with the proletariat. He opposed the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a class and maintained that the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois parties continue to exist in the entire period of socialism.

In "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People", the theory is concocted that the antagonistic contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be transformed into a non- antagonistic one. Manual labor and ideological reeducation was used to justify a benevolent attitude towards everyone, even the puppet emperor of Manchukuo.


Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have for a long time maintained a chauvinist attitude towards the international communist movement. The Chinese have no interest in the revolutionary and progressive traditions, values and experiences of the peoples of other countries. But they only regard China, Chinese experience and Chinese history as of any value. They did not even bother to investigate the experience of other parties and peoples. To them their own experience was everything. They maintained a xenophobic attitude.

The Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung applied this xenophobic attitude even to the world proletariat and Marxism-Leninism. From the mid- 30's, Mao Tsetung developed a "Chinese" or "Asian Marxism". In so far as there is any Marxist or Marxist-sounding element or phrase in it, it is taken over and renamed as a special theory and contribution of Mao Tsetung.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China were extremely hostile to the correct criticisms of Stalin and the Communist International concerning the deviations of the Communist Party of China from Marxism-Leninism. They spoke disparagingly of Comintern delegates and blamed the Comintern for all their mistakes while failing to give any role to the Communist International.,with regard to the victories of the Chinese revolution.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China took an extremely opportunist and vacillating stand in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism and Titoite revisionism. They used their participation in the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism to promote their own sectarian and revisionist formulations, such as the existence of the bourgeoisie as a class under socialism and "Mao Tsetung Thought" as the Marxism-Leninism of the era.

The attitude and activity of the Communist Party of China toward the new Marxist-Leninist parties formed in the struggle against modern revisionism was hostile and disruptive. At first they opposed the formation of the new Marxist-Leninist parties. Later they adopted the tactic of recognizing all new parties whether or not they were Marxist-Leninist in order to cause disruption in the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement and oppose the new Marxist-Leninist parties. Still later the Communist Party of China adopted the tactic of recognizing many parties in one country with the exception of the genuine Marxist-Leninist party in order to disrupt the Marxist-Leninist movement in those countries. In the U.S. every opportunist trend and sect -- from the neo-revisionists to the straight-out revisionists of the Guardian -- was promoted in Hsinhua. At the same time the Chinese slandered the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists of the ACWM(M-L) and the COUSML in the most extravagant terms to all sorts of opportunist visitors to China. Today the Communist Party of China recognizes only the opportunist groups and parties which kowtow to its line such as the Klonskyites in the U.S. and the Jurquets in France.

Thus the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung have played a disruptive role in the international communist movement, a role marked by chauvinism and xenophobia, an attitude which is entirely hostile to the principles of proletarian internationalism.


Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China present themselves as great fighters against modern revisionism and promoted themselves internationally on that basis. But in fact they used the prestige gained by the stands that they did take against Khrushchovite revisionism in order to promote their own Chinese revisionism.

Examination of the facts show that Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China played an extremely vacillating role in the struggle against modern revisionism. To begin with, they promoted the theory that revisionism and opportunism are middle forces which can be united with. This is a theoretical justification for conciliation to revisionism and coexistence with revisionism.

And in practice the Communist Party of China and Mao Tsetung vacillated to the extreme. They actually supported Tito and considered him correct in 1948 but did not come out at that time due to the stand of the Soviet Union and due to the constraints placed on them as part of the international communist movement. When Khrushchovite revisionism emerged, Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China were happy about the criticism of Stalin, and they supported the rehabilitation of Tito. They failed to distinguish between Khrushchov and Stalin in their criticisms of the Soviet Union. While Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China later appeared to moderate their stand on Stalin, they never really defended his life and work and they slandered Stalin in order to push their own revisionist theses.

The July 29th Letter of the CC of the Party of Labor and the Government of Albania to the CC of the Communist Party and the Government of China gives a history of the vacillations of the Communist Party of China in the struggle against modern revisionism, which will not be gone into here.

It is notable that the Chinese revisionists used their stand against the Khrushchovite revisionists to promote their own special revisionist theories internationally, such as the continued existence of the bourgeoisie under socialism, encircling the cities from the countryside, opportunism as a middle force to be united with, etc.

Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China criticized the Khrushchovites for their alliance with U. S, imperialism, but since 1971 Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China have been developing their own alliance with U.S. imperialism. They have developed the anti-Leninist theory of "three worlds" to justify this alliance and their own social-imperialist ambitions. The theory of "three worlds" is not just a concoction of Teng Hsiao-ping but finds its ideological roots in "Mao Tsetung Thought" and was widely promoted in the Chinese press and Party while Mao Tsetung was still alive. This shows that the Chinese struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism did not stem from Marxist-Leninist positions. End.

[Back to Top]


Galloping inflation which is impoverishing the working masses to the extreme is a source of fabulous profits for the capitalist billionaires. This fact is further confirmed by the recent release of corporate profit figures for 1978, which reached a record $202.1 billion, fully 16.2 percent above 1977 profits. In addition there is a new outburst of soaring inflation, which in February reached an official 15.4 percent at an annual rate.

The monopoly capitalist system remains in the grips of a severe economic crisis. Since the onset of the deep over-production crisis in 1974, industrial production continues to stagnate in many sectors and unemployment remains at six percent of the workforce, with over six million workers officially looking for work. Nevertheless, despite economic stagnation and crisis, corporate profits have posted record gains over the last three years in a row. 1978 profit levels were 73 percent (or 38 percent in real terms after discounting for inflation) above 1975 levels. These fantastic profits have been realized by shifting the heavy burden of the crisis onto the backs of the working people, by intensifying capitalist exploitation and oppression, and in the first place, through soaring rates of inflation.

Various Wall Street "analysts" are writing off the tremendous rate of capitalist profit as so-called "profits on paper" or even "phantom profits" in order to hide this unprecedented robbery of the masses. But the growing impoverishment of the workers on the one hand, and record profit margins for the capitalist exploiters on the other, is the stark reality. And the rich are getting richer by cutting the real wages of the workers through inflation.

Speaking of the relationship between the workers' wages and the capitalists' profits, Karl Marx pointed out: "Since the capitalist and workman have only to divide this limited value, that is, the value measured by the total labor of the working man, the more the one gets the less will the other get, and vice versa. Whenever a quantity is given, one part of it will increase inversely as the other decreases. If the wages change, profits will change in an opposite direction. If wages fall, profits will rise; and if wages rise, profits will fall." (Wages, Price and Profit) The source of capitalist profit is the unpaid labor of the worker. The wage received by the worker is only the price of his labor-power which he sells on a daily basis to his employer. But this wage equals only a portion of the value created by his labor in a given day's work, only approximately enough for the worker to sustain himself and his family. The rest of the value he creates is surplus value which is realized by the capitalist as profit (this profit is not only industrial profit, but also financial profit for the creditors, and taxes, profits for the capitalist state). And therefore, the lower the worker's wage the greater the capitalist's profit and vice versa. Hence, the capitalist exploiters' continual efforts to drive down wages to the barest minimum in search of maximum profits, and the workers' constant struggles to maintain their wage levels in the face of these efforts.

Inflation is a device in the hands of the monopolies and th0 capitalist state to increase the rate of capitalist profit by bringing down the wage level of the working class as a whole. The effects of soaring inflation in recent years on the workers' real wages is well- known. Real wages, discounting for inflation, were cut by five percent over the six years 1972 through 1978. The Labor Department reported that in relation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) the spendable income of a family of four fell by 1.2 percent over the last twelve months and by 0. 8 percent in the month of February alone. However, these figures are considerably minimized in that the prices of the most basic necessities are rising at a far more rapid pace than the CPI as a whole. In February, food costs were rising at an annual rate of 19 percent; meat prices went up at an annual rate of 59 percent; gasoline prices at 24 percent, and heating oil at a 31 percent rate, etc. This drastic erosion of the workers' real wages has exactly the effect on the capitalists' profits which Marx described. It is directly connected to the record increases in the hundreds of billions of dollars being raked in by a handful of monopoly billionaires.

The creation of inflation is just as sure a means of cutting the workers' wages to realize higher profits for the capitalist employers as the individual employers themselves directly reducing the workers' pay scales. However, inflation is a means for the entire class of rich parasites to cut the wages of the entire class of proletarians and impoverish the toiling masses. Furthermore, inflation cuts the workers' wages and enriches the capitalist in a more indirect and concealed manner: by watering down the real purchasing power of the workers' wages through the depreciation of the currency.

Inflation, the depreciation of the dollar, comes about through the expansion of the money supply or its equivalent over and above the amount required for the circulation of commodities. In the first place, the currency is inflated through deficit spending, with the federal treasury basically printing dollars to cover the tens of billions of dollars of federal deficits to finance the reactionary activities of the state, the construction of prisons, nuclear arsenals, subsidies to the large corporations, etc. The money supply is also increased by the wild speculations of the monopoly financiers in ventures of various sorts which swells the paper values of finance capital independent from any actual expansion of production or circulation. Part of these stocks and bonds thus created by the wizards of financial speculation are also used like money for the circulation of commodities, so this j increase in paper values also inflates the currency.

"All past history proves", Karl Marx pointed out, "that whenever such a depreciation of money occurs, the capitalists are on the alert to seize this opportunity for defrauding the workman." (Wages, Price and Profit) On the basis of this depreciation of money, the capitalists, especially the powerful monopolies, raise their prices sky-high. Only wages, the price of labor-power which is the only commodity the workers own to sell, do not increase as readily. For the workers to raise their wages, a stern struggle and fierce strikes are necessary and even these wage raises generally cannot keep pace with the rise in prices. And so, through inflation a hidden tax has been placed on the workers and their real wages have been cut at the expense of the profits of the capitalist billionaires.

Rampant inflation has become a permanent feature of the monopoly capitalist system and is a product of the deep crisis confronting this moribund and decaying system on a world scale. Faced with the revolt of the proletariat and the oppressed people everywhere, the entire capitalist-revisionist world has been gripped by a severe economic crisis, and the maintenance of the profits and super-profits of the imperialist monopolies has become ever more difficult. The creation of soaring rates of inflation is a means for protecting these profits, for shifting the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers and oppressed peoples.

The present record levels of double-digit inflation, the soaring profits being raked in by the monopolies and the drastic cuts in the workers' real wages and standard of living, prove that the general law of capitalist accumulation discovered by Marx is operating with ever greater force -- the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The impoverishment of the working people grows on the one hand, while the profits of the monopoly capitalists increase at an unprecedented rate. End.

[Back to Top]

Carter's Middle East "Peace" Treaty Is an Act of Aggression Against the Arab Peoples

On March 26, an Egyptian-Israeli "peace" treaty was signed in Washington by President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel with Carter beaming on. This treaty which is being hailed as a "miracle" that will "end 30 years of war and bloodshed" and "bless the Middle East with peace" is the culmination of a year and a half of demagogy, political trickery and fanfare cooked up by Carter along with Begin and Sadat. This treaty marks the unprecedented betrayal of the Arab peoples by the Egyptian government, the first Arab state to openly come to terms and sign a treaty with the Zionist aggressors. In fact, this "peace" treaty is a monstrous attack on the Arab peoples, having nothing whatsoever to do with bringing peace to the Middle East. To the contrary, it aims at consolidating U.S. imperialism's savage plunder and domination of the Arab peoples and strengthening its aggressive outpost in the region, Zionist Israel. This is clearly shown in many ways.

Carter's drive to complete the Egyptian-Israeli "peace" treaty is part of U.S. imperialism's response to the glorious struggle of the Iranian people that has overthrown the fascist regime of the Shah Pahlavi, puppet of U.S. imperialism. With the overthrow of this base area for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East, U.S. imperialism has gone into a frenzy to shore up its positions in this strategic region. Top Pentagon generals and members of Carter's cabinet have brazenly threatened military intervention in the Middle East to preserve U.S. imperialism's plunder of the oil resources there. Also, Carter has incorporated into the "peace" treaty and related agreements the most up-to-date plans for maintaining U.S. imperialism's spheres of influence in the Middle East through the granting of billions of U.S. dollars for military aid to Egypt and Israel under the signboard of guaranteeing the success of the "peace" treaty.

The aggressive and fraudulent nature of the "peace" treaty can also be seen by the fact that the U.S. - backed Zionists continue to brazenly swear, never to cease carrying out their program of expansion, violence and genocide against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. Throughout the long months of the "peace" negotiations the Israeli Zionists, armed to the teeth by U.S. imperialism, savagely bombed the Palestinian and Lebanese people across the Israeli- Lebanese border. While the negotiations farce was at a high pitch, the Israeli gangsters carried out a full-scale invasion of Lebanon. Furthermore, only a few days before the treaty was signed the "defense" minister of Israel confirmed that new settlements would be built in occupied territories after the treaty was signed. The Israeli government has already allocated money for three new "settlements", and military camps of the Israeli fascists and ten more are being planned. Prime Minister Begin revealed still further the real significance of the treaty when he proclaimed to the Knesset, then in the process of ratifying the treaty, that "the government of Israel will never return to the borders of June 4, 1967" and " a Palestinian state will never rise in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and the Gaza Strip".

The Zionists, propped up and nurtured by the aid of U.S. imperialism, have no intention of ever giving up their occupation of any part of the Palestinian homeland. The artificial state of Israel, established on the Palestinian homeland by fascist terror and continually expanded by annexationist wars of aggression, is the base from which U.S. imperialism develops its hegemony in the Middle East in its rivalry with the Soviet Union for spheres of influence in that part of the world. The Zionists are armed thugs who carry out the dirty work of U.S. imperialism, committing genocidal acts against the Arab peoples, occupying their territory and subjugating the Arab peoples to fascist rule. The "peace" treaty, based on the Camp David Accords, actually perpetuates and legitimizes these crimes of the Zionists and their U.S. -backers. The Israeli Zionists and U.S. imperialists will never be satiated. It is only the victory of the just struggles of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples and not this sham "peace" treaty that can liberate the Palestinian homeland and other Arab territory and thereby bring peace to the Middle East. When Carter recently declared that, "...peace is aggressive, attacking; peace plans its strategy and encircles the enemy;... peace gathers its weapons and pierces the defense. Peace, like war, is waged", what he clearly was really saying is that his type of "peace", the type of "peace" striven for by the treaty provisions, is "peace" based on the preservation of the colonial settler state of Israel, on the oppression and blood of the Palestinian and Arab people.

The "peace" treaty and the Camp David Accords contain plans for the further militarization of the Sinai and surrounding areas in the interests of the Israeli Zionists and U.S. imperialism. The plans for the Sinai include three billion dollars more in U.S. aid to Israel to finance the construction of two new airfields within occupied Palestine and new defense lines to replace those to be abandoned by Israel on the Sinai. As well, the U.S. will speed up the delivery of 75 F16 bombers to Israel. The agreement also calls for UN occupation troops on strategic areas of the Sinai to protect Israel's'"security", as well as a limitation of Egyptian troops on Egypt's own territory in three zones east of the Suez Canal. Furthermore, Sadat has promised not to use Egypt's military force against Israel. This will free Israel's hand on other fronts to commit further aggression against the Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian and other Arab peoples. The treaty also calls for a direct U.S. presence in the form of U.S. surveillance flights over the Sinai. (These flights have been taking place secretly since the 1973 war and now this treaty which makes them public for the first time legitimizes them for the next three years). Another provision of the treaty assures Israel that Egypt will be a source for its oil supply. Since Iran has cut off its flow of oil to the Israeli Zionists, this is an important provision aimed at making sure Israel has a sufficient quantity of oil to carry out its militarist, expansionist and aggressive activities against the Arab peoples.

While the treaty is designed to make Sadat's unprincipled compromises and capitulation to Israel appear as compromises on Israel's part and a big step forward for peace, the plan for the Sinai clearly illustrates that the real intent of the treaty is to build up and reorganize Zionist forces in this region with stepped-up U.S. aid, perpetuate occupation of the Sinai in the interests Of the Zionists and U.S. imperialism, and assure that Egypt's army poses no threat to the Zionist aggressors.

Incorporated into the "peace" agreements is the U.S. commitment for $1. 5 billion of military aid to Egypt to be added to the current $750 million in economic aid. These billions of U.S. dollars, that are supposed to guarantee the success of the Israel-Egypt "peace" treaty, are actually aimed at grooming Egypt as an alternative to Iran as another base for U.S. imperialist domination in the Middle East. The Carter administration is feverishly striving to further enslave Egypt with military and economic credits and build up its military to serve as policemen of U.S. imperialism. In return for the "heavy infusion of modern arms", Sadat has promised that Egypt would "help police the Middle East and Africa" and Carter has spoken of the "peace" treaty freeing the five Egyptian divisions now along the eastern side of the Suez Canal, so that Egypt could become a "legitimate stabilizing force" for U.S. imperialism's interests in the area. All this shows how completely Sadat has capitulated to Zionism and U.S. imperialism. Since his recognition of Israel with his visit there in November 1977, Sadat has tried to convince the Arab peoples to give up their principles and put down their arms, hi the most lapdog fashion he has praised Carter and tried to convince the Arab peoples to rely on IJ. S. imperialism and its fraudulent treaty. Today he has made clear that he is willing to set the Egyptian army against the just struggles of the Arab and African peoples to serve his master, Jimmy Carter.

Future negotiations on the question of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip within the framework of the Camp David Accord are to begin two months after the signing of the treaty. These negotiations would work out the details towards implementing the Carter-Begin-Sadat "solution" to the Palestinian problem. The Camp David Accord on the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas guarantees and legitimizes Israeli military occupation, granting to the Zionists "specified security locations". While assuring that actual military control remains in the Zionists' hands, the Camp David Accord bandies around demagogic phrases such as "full autonomy", "self-governing authority" and "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people". In fact, the Carter-Begin-Sadat accord has nothing whatsoever to do with the restoration of the Palestinian people's homeland. The true representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization, is excluded from having any say in the future of the Palestinian people, while a lackey "self-governing authority" under the thumb of Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, with U.S. imperialism behind them all, would exercise fascist rule over the Palestinian people. This so-called plan for "peace" on the West Bank, based on the negation of the Arab peoples' rights, paves the way for further aggression against the Arab people. The Palestinian and other Arab peoples are daily showing their determination to smash the fascist state of Israel and oust U.S. imperialism from the Arab world through their growing protest movement and the constant pounding of the fascist Israeli occupiers by the armed actions of the Palestinian liberation fighters. The Palestinian and Lebanese fighters have continued to respond to the U.S. imperialists' schemes and aggression with rockets and shells blasted into northern Israel. In protest of the signing of the treaty the inhabitants of the 15 Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon called a day of protest and stayed away from work. The West Bank has been the stage of many days of protests against Carter's recent visit to the Middle East and the signing of the treaty. In Halhoul, on March 15, after six days of protest to denounce the sham "peace" treaty, Israeli fascist forces opened fire on demonstrators, killing two Palestinians and wounding one. This could not stifle the peoples' protests, but spurred them to continue the rebellion for at least 12 days despite a 23-hour curfew. On March 23, a bomb was set off in the heart of Israel itself in protest to the signing of the sham treaty. Throughout the Arab world and Iran and in many other countries including the United States, Arab and other peoples demonstrated against the treaty and Egyptian embassies and airlines were seized. The so-called "peace" treaty is incapable of quelling the liberation struggle of the Arab peoples. While Carter, Begin and Sadat were celebrating the signing of the "peace" treaty, they also were bracing themselves for the onslaught of protests and armed actions that will be the inevitable response to the treaty. In Israel, the fascist military was put on alert along the Israeli front with Jordan and Syria and repression of the Palestinian people was stepped up. In Egypt, paramilitary police with automatic rifles patrolled the streets to suppress opposition to the treaty. Secretary of State Vance predicted a period of unrest following the signing of the treaty. The fears of Begin, Sadat and the Carter administration are well-founded. The Arab people will not give up their struggle until victory has been won and Israeli Zionism, U.S. imperialism, and all other imperialisms have been driven out of the Middle East. End.

[Back to Top]


Down With Chinese Social-Imperialism's Savage Aggression Against Viet Nam!


On February 17th, Chinese social-imperialism brutally invaded Viet Nam. In a massive military offensive along the entire length of the 489 miles of the Sino-Vietnamese border, the Chinese have launched over 200,000 troops along with tanks and heavy artillery into Viet Nam, reportedly seizing positions up to 20 miles inside Vietnamese territory. The Chinese aggressors are savagely attacking the Vietnamese people and it has been reported that the Vietnamese forces have put up fierce resistance in heavy fighting.

This criminal and outrageous aggression against the freedom-loving Vietnamese people ordered by the revisionist cutthroats in Peking lays bare before the whole world the social-imperialist course (socialist in words and imperialist in deeds) on Which China has now embarked. In 1968, the Khrushchovite revisionists, who had overthrown socialism in the Soviet Union, ordered the invasion of Czechoslovakia by a half-million Soviet troops and tanks when the Czechoslovakian leaders refused to go along with Moscow's dictate. That infamous invasion marked in practice that the Soviet Union had definitely taken the road of social-imperialism and had emerged as an aggressive warmongering superpower along with U.S. imperialism. So too, China's savage invasion of Viet Nam shows that China, following the revisionist and counter-revolutionary "strategy of three worlds", has openly emerged as a big nation chauvinist, imperialist power. While the Chinese revisionist gangsters prattle about "order and stability" and "maintaining peace", they are pursuing in practice an unbridled policy of imperialist aggression and war. Just as the Japanese militarists and the French imperialists tried to keep Viet Nam as their colony through wars of conquest, and just as U.S. imperialism waged one of the longest, most savage and bloodiest wars of aggression in history to enslave Viet Nam, now too Chinese social-imperialism is trying its hand at subjugating the Vietnamese people, once again turning war-torn Viet Nam into a big battle zone.

The brutal Chinese invasion of Viet Nam is the direct fruit of the U.S. imperialist -- Chinese revisionist alliance. It was only 13 days after the revisionist chieftain Teng Hsiao-ping concluded his 9-day pilgrimage to the U.S. that the Chinese troops invaded Viet Nam. Teng's visit marked the full flowering and public declaration of an all-round economic, political, ideological and military alliance between U.S. imperialism and revisionist China. Mr. Teng and his host, Mr. Jimmy Carter, sang praises together of their "new relationship" as a "factor for peace and stability in Asia and the world". The inauguration of the open U.S.-China alliance was advertised as a roadblock to aggression, a way to thwart the hegemonism of Soviet social-imperialism which both Washington and Peking want to portray as the only aggressor. However, China's invasion of Viet Nam reveals the U.S.-China alliance for what it is: an alliance for aggression and war.

In their secret talks, Carter and Teng did not discuss "peace and security", but their plans to advance their mutual inter-imperialist rivalry with the Soviet Union and to suppress the struggles of the proletariat and people for liberation and socialism in blood. It is not an accident that within six hours after leaving the U.S., Teng proclaimed that China was "going to teach Viet Nam a lesson." Clearly the Chinese invasion of Viet Nam received the blessings of the chieftains of U.S. imperialism and is a product of the U.S.-China alliance.

The proclamations by the U.S. State Department that the U.S. is "neutral" in the fighting in Indochina is a patent fraud. These statements to the effect that the fighting "is not our affair" are aimed at allowing Carter to stand aside like a little boy who hides his dirty hands after heaving a muddy brick, thus portraying the U.S. imperialists as peace-loving angels who "will work for peace and security" "whoever is at fault".

However, U.S. imperialism has been and remains an aggressive, warmongering, neo-colonialist superpower. The U.S. imperialists have ravaged the Asian continent from one end to the other in countless acts of aggression, intervention and bloody wars of conquest; in China, Korea, Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. While soundly defeated at the hands of the Vietnamese people, U. S" imperialism has not given up the ghost in the slightest and seeks revenge. Today the U.S. imperialists are rigging up a Washington-Peking-Tokyo aggressive axis for the purpose of driving Soviet social-imperialism out of the region and to suppress the revolution in Asia.

The U.S. imperialists have approved and instigated China's invasion of Viet Nam for their own ends. The fiendish U.S. strategy is to hurl China against the peoples and against the Soviet Union for its own advantage. The U.S. imperialist media speculates with glee about the "widening of the war", "possible nuclear conflict between China and the Soviet Union", etc., terrible and deadly prospects from which blood- soaked U.S. imperialism hopes to benefit. Using the tension created in Indochina, the U.S. ruling circles are trying to create maximum war hysteria and are conducting propaganda for war preparations including the reinstitution of the draft.

China's invasion of Viet Nam exposes the very dangerous game the imperialist powers are engaged in. Now the Soviet Union is making threats against China and massive troop maneuvers are taking place on the Sino-Soviet border. The Kremlin has signed a "treaty of friendship and mutual cooperation" with Viet Nam and pretends to be on the side of the Vietnamese people. But in fact, the Soviet Union is also a ferocious imperialist state which may enter the conflict for its own superpower designs. It has been reported that both Soviet and U.S. warships have been brought into the South China Sea. Clearly, world imperialism has created an extremely explosive and dangerous situation for the proletariat and oppressed people.

Peking's "justifications" for attacking a small neighboring country can fool no one. China says that it is only carrying out a "punitive" measure. But didn't U.S. imperialism carry out its war of aggression against Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia under this very same slogan? When Teng Hsiao-ping speaks of "punishing" Viet Nam for alleged "mistreatment" of the Chinese nationality in Viet Nam, he is only echoing Hitler who invaded Czechoslovakia under the pretense of alleged ill treatment of the German people there. The claim that China is only "punishing" Viet Nam in retaliation for the fighting between Viet Nam and Cambodia and the struggle inside Cambodia is the height of hypocrisy, particularly in that the hand of Chinese revisionism has been lurking behind the scenes in those wars. Peking's claim that it is only carrying out a "punitive raid" and not trying to seize Vietnamese territory does not "justify" aggression, it does not change the fact that Chinese troops are savagely attacking the Vietnamese people on Vietnamese territory in order to impose Peking's dictate on them.

Progressive public opinion everywhere will surely condemn China's invasion of Viet Nam. The people are rapidly learning the true counter-revolutionary features of the Chinese revisionist leaders who have for years been the close allies of the most hated enemies of the people from the Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Mobutu of the Congo (Kinshasa), and who have been good friends of the fascist King of Spain, the German revanchists and Japanese militarists. In their their counter-revolutionary race to turn China into a superpower, the Chinese revisionist gangsters have savagely and brutally attacked the only genuine socialist country in the world today, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. And they have openly called for a "united front" with U.S. imperialism which can only be directed against the proletariat and people of the world. The American proletariat and people too, who in their millions fought against U.S. aggression in Viet Nam, will condemn China's invasion which is an outcome of the U.S. -China warmongering alliance.

Revisionist China has joined the camp of world imperialism. It is guided in counter-revolution by the Chinese revisionist theory of "three worlds", a pro-imperialist theory of aggression and war. Along with U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism and the other imperialist powers, Chinese social- imperialism has emerged as a savage enemy of the peoples. The world proletariat and the oppressed peoples must fight against all imperialisms, including Chinese imperialism. China's aggression against Viet Nam will prove to be a big defeat for the Chinese invaders who will surely be rebuffed by the heroic Vietnamese people. The American proletariat and people also must rise up and defeat the savage U.S. imperialist beast whose alliance with Chinese social- imperialism has brought about this savage aggression against Viet Nam.




[Back to Top]

The "CP(M-L)" Social-Chauvinists are Brazen Lackeys of Imperialism

The "CP(ML)" social-chauvinists, the main agency of Chinese revisionism in the U.S., are openly hailing as a "victory" for their counter-revolutionary cause the savage Chinese social-imperialist aggression against Viet Nam. Just as the criminal barbarism against the freedom-loving Vietnamese people ordered by the revisionist cutthroats in Peking has laid bare the aggressive and warmongering course of Chinese social-imperialism, so too, the enthusiasm of the Klonskyite "three worlders" for this savage aggression exposes them further as brazen social- chauvinists and zealous lackeys of both Chinese and U.S. imperialism.

The social-chauvinists' newspaper, The Call, has carried two front page articles saluting China's invasion of Viet Nam. One article is entitled "Chinese troops strike back at Vietnamese" and the other is an editorial entitled "USSR-Vietnam to blame for Asia fighting". In these articles, the social-chauvinists make two points: 1) that Chinese social-imperialism's outrageous crimes against the proletariat and the people, and its savage invasion of Viet Nam "have been just, necessary and correct"; and 2) that the U.S. imperialists and all reactionaries should follow China's lead in taking such "forthright actions" as invading Viet Nam in order to cope with the competitive power of Soviet social-imperialism and the revolts of the proletariat and peoples of the world.

The "CP(ML)" leaders, taking their cue from their mentor, the fascist revisionist gangster Teng Hsiao-ping, defend China's invasion of Viet Nam with straightforward imperialist and fascist logic. The Call arrogantly declares: "China's successful counterattack against Vietnam with its limited aims was in no way an 'invasion' as it is billed in the U.S. and Soviet press. It is precisely a 'lesson' both to the Vietnamese and to all those who support or appease Soviet aggression in the world today. " What outrageous fascism! Contrary to what the whole world has been given to believe, China's savage aggression against Viet Nam is not an invasion at all because it is only for "limited aims", that is to "teach the Vietnamese a lesson". Indeed, dear lackeys of imperialism! And the U.S. imperialists too invaded Viet Nam with regular troops in 1964, after the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident", with the "limited aims" of "teaching the North Vietnamese a lesson". And according to Johnson and Nixon too, U.S. imperialism never, invaded Viet Nam nor waged one of the most savage wars of aggression there at all, but only waged a "limited war" to "curb North Vietnamese aggression". The Chinese invasion, no matter what name it is billed under -- whether it has "limited aims" or is only a "punitive raid" or only to "teach some necessary lessons", --remains unbridled imperialist aggression just the same.

China has emerged as a big social-imperialist state which is striving to carve out its own spheres of influence and domination. Viet Nam is a small country, and because it has refused to toe Peking's line and come under China's control, the Chinese social-imperialist armies launched ferocious aggression into Viet Nam, creating the danger of a much wider and more terrible conflict. Clearly only the most brazen of social-chauvinists such as those of the "CP(ML)" could describe such imperialism and fascism as "just, necessary and correct".

The Call authors literally revel in the "successes" of China's invading forces. They shamelessly write:

"Of course we cannot be happy that a situation has arisen in which it is necessary for China to act militarily in Vietnam". But since a military invasion has become "necessary" to China's plans to conquer Asia, The Call declares with cynical glee that the "swift strike" of the Chinese invaders is "dishing out a strong lesson" to Viet Nam, and that "already the effects of the Chinese strike are being felt". Teng Hsiao-ping also spoke of the Chinese "successes", claiming that the Chinese aggressors had "smashed the myth of Vietnamese invincibility". But what these imperialist fiends are referring to as the "myth of Vietnamese invincibility", is the liberation war against French and then U.S. imperialism which, after decades of the most arduous struggle, culminated in Complete victory in 1975, only four years ago. It is this glorious liberation struggle of the people, and unprecedented defeat for the U.S. imperialists, which Mr. Teng and Mr. Klonsky have so much cynical hatred for. Despite Peking's claims, the Chinese social-imperialists have only "succeeded" in devastating the northern border provinces of Viet Nam with a "scorched earth" policy learned from their Pentagon general friends. And they have only succeeded in further exposing Teng Hsiao-ping and all his social-chauvinist, pro-imperialist hangers-on, as the warmongering criminals that they are.

The Klonskyite social-chauvinists are using China's invasion of Viet Nam for propaganda to spur on U.S. imperialism in its war preparations and intervention and aggression against the peoples. These loyal lackeys of imperialism and junior advisors to the. State Department, openly call on the U.S. monopoly capitalist rulers to follow the "model" of China's invasion of Viet Nam and to take "forthright actions" to "firmly and militantly" defend the positions of U.S. imperialism. As The Call puts it:

"The U.S., as it is prone to do, took a vacillating and self-contradictory position on the current fighting. Ignoring the Soviet threat in Asia and its threat to Europe, a U.S. State Department spokesman claimed that the China-Vietnam fighting was 'none of our business'...

"The U.S. appears bent on placating the Soviet-Vietnamese aggressors, while at the same time protecting its newly-established relations with China. On the other hand, China's forthright actions were posed as an example to the appeasers, showing that a country which firmly and militantly defends itself has a better chance against Soviet aggression than one which apologizes for the new czars and encourages them onward."

And further:

"... The only road that can postpone the outbreak of war on a world scale is determined resistance by the peoples and countries of the world. China is offering a model of such resistance through its current posture in relation to Soviet-Vietnamese aggression and expansion."

Thus, first of all, according to these social-chauvinists, U.S. imperialism has failed to take sides in the fighting and properly take its position in open support of the Chinese invasion. However, these claims from both the State Department and the "CP(ML)" about U.S. "neutrality" are a patent fraud. They are aimed at portraying the U.S. imperialists as "human rights" angels who want nothing to do with such military adventures. But the whole world knows that the U.S. imperialists approved of and instigated China's invasion. It was only six hours after the conclusion of his U.S. tour that Teng Hsiao-ping proclaimed that China was "going to teach Vietnam a lesson". Obviously the Chinese^ invasion oft Viet Nam was discussed beforehand in Teng's secret meetings with Carter and is a direct product of the U.S.-China aggressive alliance. Nevertheless, the "CP(ML)" is engaged in chastising the State Department for failing to make the invasion of Viet Nam their "business". No doubt these warmongering "three worlders" would only be satisfied if the U.S. imperialists should take the more "forthright action" of dispatching a fleet of B-52's to bomb Hanoi and to mine Haiphong harbor to "soften up the Vietnamese for the Chinese invaders. Maybe that would put an end to Washington's so-called "vacillating and self-contradictory position on the current fighting"!

When Teng Hsiao-ping visited the U.S., he openly called for a "united front" and a military alliance of the United States, China, Japan and "united Europe" and other imperialists and fascists against Soviet social-imperialism. Teng lectured the chieftains of U.S. imperialism that only the "united action" of these aggressive imperialists who are armed to the teeth "can place curbs on the polar bear". Immediately on his return to Peking, Teng dispatched Chinese troops on a "punitive raid" into Viet Nam. And now the "CP(ML)" has declared this invasion "an example to the appeasers, showing that a country which firmly and militantly defends itself has a better chance against Soviet aggression." These frenzied social-chauvinists have dropped any disguise in their desire for a U.S. imperialist policy of unbridled aggression and war. Their principle demand is that U.S. imperialism must abandon so-called "appeasement" and should not appear weak-kneed in the face of the people's revolution and the "Soviet threat", but must "firmly and militantly defend itself" and become yet more aggressive as the executioner of the peoples and world gendarme of the capitalist-imperialist system.

For instance, The Call denounces U.S. imperialism for "ignoring the Soviet threat in Asia". And thus, when the heroic Iranian people rose up to overthrow the bloodsoaked U.S. puppet regime of the Shah, the "CP(ML)" warned of the need for a "compromise" with the Shah's man Bakhtiar "or the country will be propelled into civil war" and then the Soviet Union will "take advantage of the upsurge to serve its expansionist aims" (see The Call, 2/26/79). According to the fascist logic of the "CP(ML)", the U.S. imperialists should learn from the Chinese "example" and order an invasion of Iran by the U.S. marines to "teach a lesson" to the Iranian proletariat and people for objectively "appeasing and supporting Soviet expansionism" by rising up against China's allies, the fascist Shah and U.S. imperialism.

In fact, the propaganda of the followers of Chinese revisionism for U.S. imperialist aggression and war is unsurpassed by the most hardened warmongering U.S. politicians. The "Open Letter" of 70 retired U.S. generals and admirals to President Carter demanding stepped-up war preparations and an increased U.S. military presence around the world to counter the "Soviet threat" and to put down the revolutions of the proletariat and oppressed peoples, was approvingly cited in the pages of The Call (1/29/79). But even these decrepit U.S. imperialist war criminals are outdone by the likes of the social-chauvinist chieftain Michael Klonsky. His notorious thesis of the U.S. proletariat "aiming its main blow at Soviet social-imperialism", the foreign threat, has proved itself to be a slogan of hitlerite imperialist aggression and war.

The question arises, how can such a liberal group of notorious social pacifists and ACLU "Marxists" as the "CP(ML)", which has never taken a firm or militant position, let alone any "forthright actions", against the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and its state or against modern revisionism or any other enemy of the proletarian cause, how can such a flabby group so "firmly and militantly" champion the cause of imperialist aggression and war ? The answer lies in their alliance with the warmongers, with the U.S. imperialist and Chinese social-imperialist states. "CP(ML)" finds the "courage" for its hitlerite propaganda for aggressive war in the counter-revolutionary U.S.-China alliance, in the imperialists' arsenals of nuclear weapons and their colossal military apparatus.

The "CP(ML)" social-chauvinists are nothing but brazen lackeys of U.S. imperialism and Chinese social-imperialism and their warmongering plans for world domination. Nevertheless, certain characters continue to try to obscure this fact. The conciliators with social-chauvinism want to portray the social-chauvinists as simply misguided souls with a few unfortunate formulations and not flunkeys of imperialism and enemies of the proletariat. Such conciliators editorialize: "It won't be long before the CP/ML not only chastises the U.S. bourgeoisie for its supposed lack of aggressiveness, but comes out with a direct call to the U.S. working class to set aside its struggle against U.S. imperialism because it 'would weaken the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism'. This is the inevitable road the revisionist CP/ML will follow, one that is in complete opposition to the interests of the working class and in complete support of the bourgeoisie" (Unite!, 3/1/79, underlining added). What shameless confusion- mongering! Just how many outrageous crimes against the revolution and in defense of imperialism does the "CP(ML)" have to commit before the conciliators will find it necessary to condemn them as "in complete opposition" to the working class? Wasn't Michael Klonsky's notorious call for the U.S. proletariat to "direct the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism", a call declared nearly three years ago, exactly such "a direct call to the U.S. working class to set aside its struggle against U.S. imperialism" ?! And if these professional conciliators have left any doubts in anyone's mind, as the Chinese invasion of Viet Nam has further demonstrated, Klonsky's "main blow" at the foreign threat has become a slogan for the open incitement of war, for the savage "forthright actions" and military adventures of imperialism. End.

[Back to Top]


Increased "Worker Productivity" Means Speedup, Job Combinations and Overtime

The big monopolies, with the Carter administration as their chief representative, are waging a brutal productivity drive against the workers as part of their all-sided offensive against the working class under the hoax of "fighting inflation". The present soaring rate of inflation which is impoverishing the workers is being blamed on the workers themselves, on their "high wage demands" and "low worker productivity growth", and so forth. In recent months, slave driver Carter and the "top inflation fighters" of his administration have repeatedly stressed the need to "increase the output per man-hour", that is to submit the workers to a more terrible overwork, as "an important contribution to reducing inflation" and to overcoming the economic crisis of the monopoly capitalist system. However, the stark reality of just what this productivity drive of the capitalist exploiters against the workers means can be clearly seen in the auto industry. The auto magnates, the infamous engineers of the system of efficiently and "scientifically" sweating the workers to an early grave, have been waging just such a productivity drive against the workers.

From the early days of Ford's assembly lines, the auto monopolists have always pressed to further intensify labor and to impose a system of extreme overwork on the workers. And today, as the auto billionaires attempt to protect their profit margins by shifting the burden of the economic crisis onto the workers, this system of terrible overwork has become even more unbearable. The auto monopolists' productivity drive has brought on the workers layoffs and permanent unemployment combined with workloads often literally beyond the physical capacity of the workers to withstand.

In 1974 the bottom fell out of the U.S. car market. Auto production in 1975 was down nearly 30% from the record production year of 1973. Nearly 200,000 auto workers were thrown out of the plants while those remaining were worked to the bone as the auto monopolies attempted to minimize their losses. In 1976, auto production was again restored to nearly pre-1974 levels. But it was restored on the basis of a greater intensity and productivity of labor. Over the three years, 1971-1973, an average of 11.5 million cars were built a year with an average workforce of 687,000 workers, a proportion of 16.7 cars built for each worker employed. Over the three years, 1976-1978, an increased average of 12.5 million cars were built each year with an almost equal average workforce of 682,000 workers, a proportion of 18.1 cars built for each worker employed. Hence, production levels were restored and even increased through imposing a heavier workload on the workers, increasing unit output per worker by 8 percent.

This increased intensity and productivity of the workers' labor has been achieved in two ways. First, through brutal speed-up and heavier workloads. Recently, at the GM light truck assembly plant in Flint, Michigan, the workers discovered a secret button in the manager's office which was used to gradually increase the speed of the assembly line during the course of the shift, and demanded compensation for their labor expended in building the thousands of extra trucks the GM monopolists had obtained in this manner. This is simply an outrageous example of the speed-up which is taking place on all the auto assembly lines with every changeover and throughout the year as well. During the times when production is cut back and the assembly lines are slowed down, the workers still receive no respite from the hellish pace of work. The common practice of the auto billionaires is to lay off a large number of workers and combine jobs, imposing an even heavier workload on the remaining workers though the line is running slower.

In general, workloads are significantly heavier today than in the past. A stark example of this is the fact that as late as the last decade many jobs were worked on the "team relief' system. For example, the job loading seats into the cars was done alternately by one team of two men, and then another, switching off every half hour, or heavy leaf springs were brought to the line and fastened onto the axle by two teams of three men alternating every hour, etc., whereas today this "team relief" system has nearly been eliminated. These heavy jobs are now done by the same workers the entire day with only a few 10 or 15 minute breaks when a "relief man" takes over.

And second, increased productivity of labor is being realized through the introduction of new equipment (for instance "robots" which replace two or three workers on a job per shift), new plants and retooling of the machinery throughout the old plants. Along with the shift towards the smaller cars, has come the first major retooling and rebuilding of the decaying U.S. auto industry since the so-called "age of automation" productivity drive following the Second World War. This is being carried out by the auto magnates in their competition with the more modern auto industry in Japan and Europe. General Motors started retooling first. Ford has begun the process of spending $20 billion to retool all of its assembly lines by 1980 and Chrysler too has started to retool its plants. Combined, the auto monopolies spent $10.23 billion for new plant and equipment alone in the three years 1976-78, nearly twice the $5.6 billion spent over the 1971-73 period.

Together with speed-up and the introduction of new machinery, the auto monopolies continue to enforce on the workers long hours of overtime. The working day is often nine or ten hours for workers on the line and it is regularly 12 hours for repairmen, often seven days per week at all of the Big Three. And Saturday work is regularly scheduled plant-wide for production workers which means that a 54 or more hour week is not unusual in the auto plants. In 1977, auto workers put in more overtime hours than in any year in the previous decade.

Obviously, this terrific pace of work combined with long hours of overtime have disastrous consequences for the workers. For large numbers, this brutal overwork is physically crippling and ruining their lives. On the assembly lines, there are many jobs which a man physically cannot endure day in and day out. A reflection of the extreme overwork in the auto industry is a high level of absenteeism, as many workers simply are forced to take extra days off in order to keep body and mind together.

Alongside the overwork comes increased job insecurity and unemployment. The production of more cars with fewer workers has meant permanent layoffs. An outrageous situation has been created at many plants where the workers still inside are putting in long hours of overtime while their fellow workers are pounding the pavement looking for a job. In turn, the large numbers of unemployed workers outside the auto plants are used as a club by the capitalists to enforce a more brutal overwork on those remaining on the job, as the management makes it well known that if anyone refuses to work at the required pace for the required number of hours, there are thousands of others to take his place.

From the example of the auto industry it can be clearly seen that the monopoly capitalists' drive for a "higher rate of worker productivity" only means a more savage exploitation and oppression of the workers. Such "productivity growth" has nothing to do with "fighting inflation", but it does have everything to do with increasing the enormous profits of the capitalist parasites. For instance, with the bust of the car market in 1974 and 1975, the profits of the auto billionaires were cut sharply. But with the restoration of production levels and with fewer workers putting out more cars in the 1976-78 period, annual net profits averaged over $6 billion, a 70% increase over the average profits of $3.6 billion during 1971- 73. That is to say, even after inflation is taken into account, the auto magnates realized a significant increase in profits by perfecting their man-eating system of overwork.

Thus, the monopoly capitalists' productivity drive, directed by the Carter administration, is a drive to squeeze more blood and sweat out of the workers, not only in auto but in all sections of industrial workers as well as service workers such as in health care, public sector employees, etc. It is part of the campaign to shift the burden of the economic crisis onto the shoulders of the workers and to realize maximum profits for the capitalist monopolies. Therefore, for the working class to defend its basic interests it is necessary to wage revolutionary mass struggle against Carter's "anti-inflation program", against his anti-working class wage-price controls to cut the workers' real wages and against the savage productivity drive of the exploiters.

Over the last couple of years, the auto workers' struggle against speed-up, job elimination, compulsory overtime and increased safety and health hazards as a result of the capitalists' productivity drive, has broken out into a series of bitter strikes and wildcats. However, in order to further advance their struggle, the workers must defeat the class collaborationist line of the leaders of the capitalist trade unions. Doug Fraser, president of the UAW, is a shameless enthusiast for Carter's "anti-inflation" program. He not only supports Carter's 7% wage controls in the face of a 10% rate of inflation, but supports the brutal productivity drive of the auto monopolies as well. The social-democratic hacks of the UAW openly call for "greater productiveness of the auto workers" as the solution to all the problems the workers face, from long hours of overtime and unemployment to inadequate wages. At the same time, the UAW leaders are opposed to the workers' struggle for relief from the brutal overwork in the plants, the struggle against speed-up, job elimination and forced overtime.

Doug Fraser and company do not even raise the issue of fighting the auto monopolies' productivity drive which they consider the prerogative of the monopolists in their search for "industrial progress", which is allegedly a natural benefit to the capitalists and the workers alike. The traitorous labor leaders portray the stepped-up intensity and productivity of labor as a means to alleviate the capitalist oppression. But in fact, as long as the capitalist system of wage- slavery remains intact, such an increased productivity of labor does and can only mean a more exhausting and terrible slavery for the workers and maximum profits for an insignificant handful of monopoly billionaires. Only with the overthrow of the monopoly capitalist system and the establishment of the socialist system under the rule of the working class will the development of the productivity of labor serve the liberation of the workers from backbreaking toil and advance the well-being of the working masses. End.

[Back to Top]

Chrysler's Productivity Drive:


(The following leaflet was issued by the Detroit Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists on February 22, 1979.)

The auto magnates are waging a fierce productivity drive against the auto workers. Recent events at this Chrysler assembly plant are a sharp example of this. The Chrysler billionaires have been frequently forcing the workers to work overtime while thousands of workers are still laid off. In particular they have scheduled forced overtime on one assembly line for the first shift while the second shift on this same line has been shut down as of last January. Almost 4,000 workers have been eliminated from the plant over the last year. Overtime under these conditions is an outrage against the workers!

The Chrysler billionaires have resolved to keep their profits rolling in during the crisis by making the workers pay. They have hired Lee Iacocca, formerly chief slave-driver for Henry Ford, for over $6 million to plan their war against the workers.

But this latest outrage at this plant is not just the product of Chrysler's, nor of just the Big Three's productivity drive either. In fact there is a drive for "increased productivity" nationwide in practically every industry. Not only auto workers, but coal miners, dock workers, electronics, shipbuilding, hospitals, steel and other workers are all under the same sort of fierce attack. This "increased productivity" drive is part of the capitalist offensive against the workers on a national scale designed to make the workers pay for the crisis.

This national productivity drive is being coordinated by the federal government headed by the Carter administration. Carter and the other government officials have stressed time and again that his "anti-inflation" program not only means wage controls (keeping combined wage and benefit increases to 7% per year while inflation is 11% per year -- i. e. a wage cut), but a big push to "increase national worker productivity" as well. When he declared Phase II of wage controls last October, he also set up a "National Productivity Board" to coordinate the productivity push in all industries nationally. The latest attack on the workers at this Chrysler plant of forced overtime with workers still laid off, is just the sort of "increased productivity" Carter is calling for with his "anti-inflation" program!

The big lie given to justify Carter's "anti-inflation" program is that "higher wages" and "low worker productivity" supposedly "cause inflation". All the government officials from Carter on down constantly repeat this lying propaganda to convince the workers to "sacrifice" and submit to hellish overwork. They hope that if this lie is repeated enough, the working people will think it is the truth.

But Carter's program for increased productivity has nothing at all to do with "fighting inflation"... however it does have everything to do with increasing the capitalists' profits!

Long ago, Karl Marx explained how this works:

"...the over-work of the employed part of the working-class swells the ranks of the reserve, whilst conversely the greater pressure that the latter" (the unemployed reserve) "by its competition exerts on the former" (the employed) "forces these to submit to overwork and to subjugation under the dictates of capital. The condemnation of one part of the working-class to enforced idleness by the over-work of the other part, and the converse, becomes a means of enriching the individual capitalists...."

Every factory worker knows how this works -- the rich maintain a huge army of unemployed workers, and with overtime and speed-ups, they lay off more and more workers... then they speed up and demand more overtime again, which enables them to again lay off more workers, and on and on.... If the workers who are still working complain, the employers say: "There are plenty of unemployed workers I can get to do the job if you won't!" Thus the rich use competition between the employed and unemployed workers for the fewer and fewer jobs in order to force the workers to submit to more and more overwork. All the while, as Marx points out, the capitalists are making themselves richer and richer at the expense of the working class. This is the old method that the Chrysler capitalists (and all the auto monopolies for that matter) use to enrich themselves.

Carter and the auto capitalists are only after bigger profits and are not "fighting inflation" when they advocate increased productivity for the auto workers. If they are so interested in "fighting inflation" they should start by attacking their own capitalist system. In fact, inflation and high prices is another tool of the rich to increase the exploitation of the poor. Inflation comes from the government printing up billions of dollars in paper money for the purpose of covering the huge deficits in the government's budget. These deficits (coming up short, in the red) are incurred from the billions the rich throw away on aggressive military expenses, on the bloated government bureaucracy, on subsidies to the big monopolies, etc. Inflation is also the result of the rampant speculations of the finance capitalists which creates paper values in the form of stocks, bonds, etc., over and above any increase in actual production. This combined with the printing of dollars to cover the federal deficits makes the money already in circulation (and with which the workers are paid), more and more worthless... meanwhile the big monopolies demand higher and higher prices to insure that they themselves are not hurt in the least by the sinking value of the dollar. There is no way in the world that "increased productivity" and overwork of the workers is going to "fight inflation" like Carter claims. If someone really wants to "fight inflation" they have to fight against the big capitalists and their government who are the real culprits, and not the workers who in fact are the victims of inflation.

It is very interesting to note that Fraser and the UAW Executive Board officially support Carter's "anti-inflation" ploy of wage controls and have been doing so since the start. It is no wonder that not a single finger is being raised by the "militant" leaders of the UAW against forcing the Chrysler workers to work overtime with layoffs (nor against the frequent scheduling of 10 hours work six days per week at some plants when the contract itself only allows 9 hours, nor against the introduction of robots to take workers' jobs, etc., etc....) It is no wonder because by supporting Carter's wage controls, the union is openly supporting the "increased productivity" drive program in the auto industry! This is what it means to the auto workers for the UAW to support Carter's wage controls! End.

[Back to Top]

Workers Win Strike in Defiance of Wage Controls at American Insulated Wire

(The following article is taken from Boston Worker, newspaper of the Boston Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, March 5, 1979.)

Fifteen hundred workers at American Insulated Wire in Pawtucket, Rhode Island and Northeast Cable Co. in South Attleboro recently returned to work after winning their strike against the company's three-year contract offer of a wage increase of 7% and against Carter's fascist wage controls. This militant strike, the first in 28 years for IBEW Local 1203, was an extremely significant event for all the workers in this area, especially because it is the first strike in New England against Carter's wage controls.

The strike was successful on three fronts: First, the workers succeeded in winning higher wages than the capitalist owners offered them. Through this determined struggle, the workers have been able to lessen the immediate effects of inflation. Second, the workers exposed the labor traitors of the union leadership who had agreed to the company's original offer. Third, the monopoly capitalist owners of American Insulated Wire, Leviton Manufacturing, failed in their attempt to shove Carter's guidelines down the workers' throats.

The company's excuse for offering a measly 7% increase was the same excuse all the capitalists are using lately -- they have to comply with Carter's wage-control guidelines. However, a 7% increase amounts to a huge wage cut at a time when inflation is officially running at 10-11% a year, with the basic necessities of life increasing even faster. This paltry wage "increase" offered to the workers is even more vicious when it is considered that American Insulated Wire is a notorious sweatshop. The workers who have been there ten years and more make only barely above the average $4.19 per hour. Not only are the wages extremely low, but the workers have long suffered under brutal working conditions.

Carter's "anti-inflation" program, which the "voluntary" wage increase guideline is a part of, is a program which means nothing else except wage cuts for the workers and maximum profits for the rich. It is a repeat on a new scale of the brutal anti-working class wage controls of the hated fascist -- Richard Nixon. Is it any wonder that the owners of American Insulated Wire are so eager to patriotically uphold the 7% guideline ? What a great opportunity for them to attack the just demands of the workers for higher wages and to continue their 55 years of practicing vicious exploitation!

Not only have the workers at American Insulated Wire stood up to the attacks of their employer, but they have also resolutely stood up to the betrayal and sabotage of the labor traitors in their union. Right from the beginning these labor traitors opposed the just struggle for higher wages of the workers. The union president, who the workers forced to resign, openly stood up for the company with such drivel as: "The cable industry is a depressed industry and their wages are low. Any contract proposal we submit to them won't change that."

These so-called "representatives of labor", the top labor bureaucrats, are in full cahoots with Carter and the capitalists in instituting Phase II wage controls (which include the 7% wage guideline) to suppress the workers' movement and cut the workers' wages. Today the trade union apparatus has been integrated onto the capitalist state machine, and the top labor hacks serve as government bureaucrats suppressing the workers' movement.

This fact was clearly exposed by the request made by the Executive Board of Local 1203 for the FBI to "investigate" and attack the Marxist-Leninists of the COUSML. The trade union hacks sinisterly alleged that the COUSML was responsible for supposed "threats against Executive Board members" which the "FBI should investigate". And in collaboration with the local TV and bourgeois newspapers carried out a vicious anti-working class and anti-communist slander campaign to the effect that "the communists are noted for disrupting everything" and their aim is to "disrupt the union and the company". Most revealing of all, the Executive Board requested the FBI to investigate "false reports... in Communist pamphlets describing brutal and sweat-shop working conditions".

Thus, the trade union hacks called on the FBI, the political police of the capitalist state, to attack the Marxist-Leninists for "disrupting", for exposing, the traitorous activities of the Executive Board and for "disrupting" the company, "falsely" exposing its savage exploitation of the workers. These labor traitors want the FBI to "investigate" the COUSML because it firmly supported the struggle of the workers. The COUSML produced a special issue of Rhode Island Worker in Portuguese and carried out other activities in support of this struggle which is significant because it sets a precedent for other contract struggles coming up in the wire, electrical and other industries to defy Carter's wage controls.


The struggle of the workers at American Insulated Wire for higher wages and better working conditions was entirely just. The working conditions at this plant are almost unbelievable -- mandatory 12 hour shifts for the men, sometimes seven days a week. With the extremely low wages paid, these long hours are the only way to make a living wage. The company benefits tremendously from this arrangement, only having to pay two shifts of workers rather than three shifts at a regular 8-hour day.

The majority of the workers at American Insulated Wire are Portuguese or Cape Verdean immigrants. This means that they are not only subject to the everyday exploitation at the place of work, but are subject to vicious discrimination and the denial of their basic social and political rights on a daily basis. The state and the bourgeois news media slander the immigrant workers to split the immigrant workers from the rest of the working class and to isolate them. For example, they deliberately distorted the struggle that the workers carried out against the labor traitors by concocting the story that the workers simply wanted Portuguese leadership instead of the Irish leadership. The workers made it quite clear that the heart of the matter was that the leadership of the union was "sleeping with the company" and actively organizing against their interests.

The workers at AIW voted by a narrow margin to go back to work after having won certain victories. This does not mean that the fight against such things as mandatory twelve hour work shifts, the brutal working conditions and inflation is over. The monopoly capitalist owners of AIW will only step up their attacks against the workers and in turn the workers must continue to fight them tit-for-tat, continuing the struggle through to the end. The Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists fully supports the struggles of the working class against Carter's wage controls. Only the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat can make the rich bear the burden of their crisis and overthrow the man-eating monopoly capitalist system once and for all. End.

[Back to Top]

Farmworkers Defy Carter's Wage Controls and Persist in Struggle

Beginning on January 22nd and continuing over the last two months, 4300 California farmworkers have been waging a militant strike struggle against the lettuce growers and agricultural monopolists in California's Imperial Valley. So far, the strike has stopped agricultural production and lettuce harvesting at 11 of 28 farms in the valley, cutting this years total U.S. winter iceberg lettuce harvest by 35-40%.

The majority of the farmworkers in the Imperial Valley are Mexican citizens who commute daily across the border to the fields. They do backbreaking stoop labor, work for miserably low wages (the average wage is less than $4. 00 per hour), and generally earn less than $5,000 per year because of short work weeks due to rain, frost or the crops not being ready for harvesting. With skyrocketing inflation (presently at 15% in February), the farmworkers have seen their already meager wages cut year after year. One report has stated that in the past eight years the farmworkers wages rose by 45% whereas the cost of living has increased by 71% during the same period.

Faced with these conditions, the farmworkers have openly defied the flag-waving appeals by the lettuce growers and agricultural monopolists to submit to Carter's 7% wage guidelines. It is plain to see that the growers' demand for the farmworkers to follow Carter's 7% wage guidelines is a call for the farmworkers to accept a big cut in real wages and in this way fill the already overflowing pockets of the capitalist growers with increased profits. In defying the appeals of the growers, the farmworkers have demanded wage increases of approximately 45% for next year, a one year contract, and increased health and pension benefits. The winning of a 45% wage increase will raise the laborers' pay rate from a present $3. 70 per hour to $5. 25 per hour and the piece rate workers' rate would Increase from a present 57¢ per box to 87¢ per box. The farmworkers have militantly persisted on their strike struggle in order to win these demands.

Twenty-eight of the growers (including the Sun- Harvest Ranch, a subsidiary of the huge agricultural monopoly and multi-national corporation United Brands) have organized themselves into a negotiating bloc called "the Committee for Fair Negotiations between the Growers and the Workers", and have conducted a campaign of slander and hysteria, hoping to demoralize the farmworkers and break the support of other sections of the working class for their struggle. Neither the open racist and fascist attacks launched by the growers which have characterized the farmworkers as "foreign, illegal, ungrateful Mexicans who take away American jobs" nor full page ads in the Los Angeles Times claiming that the farmworkers earn $10-14 per hour, have been able to demoralize the farmworkers and their supporters. It is a well known fact that the Mexican farmworkers are proud members of the working class, who for generations have militantly fought the vicious exploitation of the agricultural monopolists. Since the beginning of the strike, the lettuce cooler workers and the Teamster truck drivers have all refused to cross the picket lines at the struck farms.

The mass actions of the farmworkers have smashed up all attempts by the growers to break the strike whether it be scab labor, gun thugs or outright murder. Early in the struggle, the growers ran a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times calling on people to participate in a "Volunteer Harvest Day" to pick 10,000 head of lettuce at the Vessey Ranch near Holtville, California. When the " Volunteer Harvest Day" came, hundreds of strikers were also at the Vessey Ranch. Using rocks, bottles, sticks and clubs; the farmworkers physically drove the 300 scabs out of the fields, smashed the windshields and slashed the tires on 35 vehicles used to transport the scabs and the scab harvested lettuce. When one striker was grabbed by several foreman and gun thugs who tried to arrest him for firebombing a grower's truck, he was freed by 200 fellow strikers who surrounded the foreman and the gun thugs. On February 10th, 150 farmworkers went to the fields at the El Centro Ranch to physically drive out the scabs. Soon after they entered the fields, the farmworkers were shot at by ranch foreman and hired gun thugs. Several farmworkers were injured by the gunfire and 31-year-old Rufinao Mijango Contreras was shot dead by a.38 caliber bullet through his skull. This outright, coldblooded murder by the agricultural monopolists has failed to suppress the farmworkers' determined struggle and in fact it has steeled the farmworkers to fight on even harder. On February 22nd near Holtville, 1,000-1,500 farmworkers stormed several fields to drive out the scabs. Again using rocks, bottles and clubs, the farmworkers fought a pitched battle with the foreman, gun thugs and the California Highway Patrol, with seven police cars receiving severe damage.

Throughout the strike the governmental apparatus at all levels has shown itself to be nothing but a well organized machine in the service of the agricultural monopolists for the suppression of the farmworkers' struggle. When the growers organized their "Volunteer Harvest Day", it was the local high school authorities which actively recruited students to do the scab labor. When the striking farmworkers began to drive the scabs out of the fields, the local police and the County Sheriffs in full riot gear, with a riot control truck and a helicopter, were used to "preserve and protect order" (read: attack the striking farmworkers and protect the scabs). When the mass picketing reached the level of 1500 farmworkers battling foremen, gun thugs and police, it was California Governor Brown, "friend of the farmworkers" who sent in an additional 40 Highway Patrolmen to re-inforce the 80 police already being used as armed strikebreakers. It was this same Gov. Brown who earlier in the struggle had demogogically said that he didn't want to disrupt the process of "fair labor Negotiations" between the growers and the farmworkers. All of the activities of the monopoly capitalist state during the 1979 California lettuce farmworkers' strike clearly show that the state is not a neutral force in society standing above class interests but is in fact an instrument in the hands of the monopoly capitalists used to protect their rule and profits and to suppress any revolts which break out among the proletariat and the oppressed masses.

To continue their strike, to keep the scabs out of the fields, etc., the farmworkers have had not only to fight against the growers, the scabs, and the government, but they.also have had to oppose those within their own ranks who have tried to confuse, divert and liquidate their struggle. From the beginning, the sold-out labor aristocrats within the United Farmworkers Union (UFW) under the leadership of Caesar Chavez tried to sabotage the struggle and suppress the workers. Chavez is doing everything he can to prevent the workers from persisting on the path of relying on their strength and from actively resisting all the attacks organized by the agricultural monopolies. The UFW leaders are trying to impose pacifism and reliance on the capitalist state on the workers' struggle. After Rufinao Mijango Contreras was murdered by the growers' foreman and gun thugs, Chavez called for a "Blue Ribbon Panel" of clergy, labor and government officials to conduct an "independent investigation" of the murder. The panel reported that there should be "clarification" of when striking farmworkers could enter the fields, thus raising the possibility that the growers were justified in the cold-blooded murder and shooting down of the farmworkers who came to drive out the scabs. All of these activities of the labor aristocrats are in service to the rich and the monopoly capitalists in ' their efforts to liquidate the mass active resistance of the workers. The events clearly show that in order to oppose and defeat the strike-breaking efforts of the growers and their government, the farmworkers have had to continue to take up militant mass defense of their struggle and at the same time oppose the line of the labor aristocracy -- the line of class collaboration with and capitulation to the monopoly capitalists and their state.

Neither the wild hysteria of the agricultural monopolists about Carter's 7% wage guidelines, attempted strike breaking and murder, nor the activities of the labor aristocrats have been able to suppress the farmworkers' current strike struggle. The farmworkers' militant active resistance to smash up all the strike breaking activities of the growers and their government, and their determined defiant stand against Carter's 7% wage guidelines are shining examples for all workers to see. By continuing on the path of militant active resistance through to the end the farmworkers will be victorious in their struggle. End.

[Photo: Farmworkers battle fascist police and growers.]

[Back to Top]

Mexican Workers Demonstrate Against Attacks by Immigration Service

Demonstrations took place March 9 and 10, on the U.S.-Mexico border, halting traffic from El Paso, Texas, to Juarez, Mexico. The demonstrations erupted after U.S. immigration officials undertook what they described as a "more thorough inspection than usual" of domestic and other workers commuting from Juarez to jobs in El Paso. One hundred and forty Mexican women, most of them employed as domestics in El Paso, were taken off city buses by immigration inspectors and returned to Mexico, allegedly for not having the proper papers. As well,

11 border-crossing cards were cancelled, and instructions were issued to 46 other workers to return with "better proof of admissibility". These inspections tied up traffic at three bridges and prevented many Juarez residents from reaching work. The demonstrations erupted to protest the harassment of the people by the immigration authorities. About 650 Mexican demonstrators blocked traffic on two international bridges crossing into Juarez, Mexico, tossing U.S. flags into the Rio Grande. A young Mexican girl was killed and two other children injured by an automobile which tried to crash through the demonstrators.

The crackdown and increasing attacks on Mexicans who work in the United States come less than a month after the visit of U.S. imperialist chieftain Jimmy Carter to Mexico. One of the main things on Carter's agenda, besides the plunder of Mexican oil and gas, was the question of the so-called "illegal aliens". In a press conference Carter gave just before leaving for Mexico, he said: "I want to make sure that when people are in our country, whether they are here as citizens or not, that we protect their basic human rights." This shameless demagogy comes from the same Mr. Carter who last year proposed a most vicious racist and fascist "aliens" bill for mass roundups and deportations, harassment and persecution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico. For Carter to pose as a defender of the "human rights" of the Mexican people is the depths of shamelessness. Is it not the U.S. imperialists who are responsible in the first place for the unbearable living conditions and the intolerable unemployment which the Mexican proletariat and other working masses face? And is not the labor of the Mexican working masses, forced to not this labor crucial to the maximum profits of these same finance capitalists within the borders of the U.S.? One Houston construction capitalist was recently quoted as saying: "If you took all the Mexicans out of Houston and sent them back, the economy of the city would be crippled". This statement reveals the tremendous profits which the exploitation of the Mexican-American and Mexican working masses means for the monopoly capitalists. The monopoly capitalists raise a big hue and cry about "illegal" Mexican immigrants, but the fact is that the capitalist exploiters derive immense profits from these Mexican workers. The fact that these workers are in the country "illegally" and face the threat of arrest and deportation makes these workers most vulnerable to the most intense exploitation, as the capitalists are able to pay these workers starvation wages, and force them to work under the worst conditions. It is reported that Mexican domestics working in El Paso are paid as little as $20 a week.

The protests of the Mexican people against the increasing attacks against the people by the Immigration and Naturalization Service are part of the growing wave of protests which is sweeping across Mexico. Last month, thousands of demonstrators protested the visit of U.S. imperialist chieftain Carter, shouting such slogans as CARTER GO HOME!, and CARTER IS COMING TO PLUNDER OUR OIL AND [...] End.

[Photo: Demonstrators block bridge at U.S.-Mexico border.]

[Back to Top]

The Essence of "Police Brutality" Is Racism and Growing Fascism

(The following leaflet was issued by the Buffalo Branch of the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists, on March 11, 1979.)

While the rich and their city government are loudly "debating" "police brutality" and the "proper method" for guarding against it, the Afro-American masses have quietly, but resolutely, settled the issue. They have demonstrated that mass active resistance is the only way to oppose fascist and racist attacks of the police and the other state agencies of the rich. Two incidents within the past few months illustrate this quite clearly.

First, in early January, Afro-American and white residents on East Woodlawn Avenue staunchly resisted an unprovoked armed assault by over one-half dozen Buffalo police. The police had arrived on the scene to "investigate" a burglary complaint -- over a full hour late -- and under this pretext proceeded to get down to their real "duty": attacking the masses. The families thus assaulted refused to give way an inch before the police attack, meeting it tit-for-tat on the spot and subsequently filing suit against the city for damages resulting from the attack. So outrageously fascist and racist was this attack that the arresting officers could not even come up with a legal pretext to justify their attack and arrest of the six people who were beaten and then dragged to police headquarters at 4:00 a. m.! --quite a self-exposure considering that the bourgeois laws amount to one legal pretext and excuse following another, written precisely to justify such state attacks on the ordinary masses of people. The second incident took place in early February on Kehr Street near Genesee. There, a crowd of 20 to 30 Afro-Americans attempted to prevent Buffalo police from arresting a young Afro-American man on the charge of criminal trespass.

The outstanding feature of both these incidents was the active participation of the Afro-American masses in opposing right on the spot the racist and fascist attacks of the police. Such state-organized attacks against the black masses take place everyday; whether they are carried out by the "official" fascists and racists, the police, or by the "unofficial" fascist and racist gangs which are secretly organized by the state. This racism and fascism is at the heart of "police brutality" which is actively resisted on a daily and continual basis by the Afro-American and anti-fascist masses. These two events demonstrate that the Afro-American people are not about to submit to the open assaults of the rich and their state. The big bourgeoisie is bent on revenge against the black masses who organized titanic struggles against racial discrimination and violent repression especially over the past two decades. The Carter administration has organized on many fronts to punish the Afro-American masses for these struggles and to drive the black people back to the barbaric system of Jim Crow segregation and repression. To this end, it is organizing the fascist anti-busing movement; it is propagating the fraud that "reverse discrimination" allegedly exists, and straightforwardly beefing up its repressive police forces around the country to attack the black people.

Here in Buffalo, the Griffin administration (Buffalo's "own Jimmy") has stayed completely in step with the program of Carterite fascism in its attacks on the Afro-American people. The most notable measure the Griffin administration has taken to strengthen the repressive hand of the state is the establishment of police substations in and surrounding the national minority and poorer sections of Buffalo. It is the undeniable experience of the masses that the opening of these substations is accompanied, not by a decrease in crime, but by an increase in the assaults of the police on the masses of these areas under the cover of fighting "vagrancy", "loitering", and so forth. Another example is the Griffin administration's schemes for "revitalizing downtown" by clearing the downtown area of "scum". The racist content of this scheme can be seen in the fact that the "scum" Griffin refers to is in fact the Afro-American and other minority people, who are the majority of the people who frequent the downtown area. Griffin's logic is that in order to "revitalize downtown", the area must be cleared of Afro-American and other minority people. These racist slanders are aimed both at creating hysteria against the Afro-American people and at giving the green light to the police to step up their attacks against the masses in the area.

The open racist and fascist character of the Griffin administration is daily becoming more exposed. It is because the active resistance of the masses to this growing fascism is advancing that the rich are now organizing a so-called "public debate" on the issue of "police brutality". This "debate" which is being organized through the Common Council is aimed at hoodwinking the masses into believing that there is something just in the government of the rich, that it will do something to solve the problem of "police brutality". But neither the open fascists nor their social-democratic "opponents" have any intention of opposing growing fascism, which is at the heart of "police brutality". In fact, far from opposing fascism, both sides share a common "respect for the job the police offers are doing in the city". Based on this "respect" for growing fascism, all members of the Common Council in the recent past have given their united support for the beefing up of the police department and the establishment of the police substations. So while the Common Council tries to give the appearance it is taking action on the issue of "police brutality" through its debate, in fact this is a charade designed to deceive the masses. As part of this deception a resolution was passed in the Common Council to investigate the Police Commissioner's Investigative Unit (PCIU). Again we see the social-democratic majority in the Common Council uniting with the open fascists on the intent of the resolution to "restore stability", "lay the matter to rest" and "restore public faith". In other words, do nothing to oppose developing fascism.

In order to fight the open fascists in the Griffin administration, the masses must also repudiate the social democratic politics of the "moderate" wing in the Common Council. The main issue facing the entire working class in fighting both the open fascists and their social-democratic "opponents" is developing mass active resistance. Active resistance to fascism is a revolutionary method of struggle that unites the masses in irreconcilable contradiction to the monopoly capitalist state. The Afro-American people have a long history of and continue today to make great contributions to the developing antifascist movement of the working and oppressed people. The working class is at the center of this resistance to growing fascism and under the leadership of its Marxist-Leninist party must lead in merging all the revolutionary movements into one great storm of revolution which smashes the growing fascism of the rich to atoms. For their role played in this struggle, the Afro-American people deserve the undying support of the whole working class in the battle to smash the fascist offensive of the rich and their state.



[Back to Top]


(Newspaper of the Caribbean Progressive Study Group)




This newsletter is published by the Caribbean Progressive Study Group. The CPSG is the organization of the revolutionary and patriotic West Indians.

We, the sons and daughters of the West Indian community, have launched the CPSG for two reasons.

Firstly, to unite our community to fight the racist and fascist attacks organized by the state of the rich rulers of this country. The violent racist attacks on our communities are carried out both by the police of the rich and by gangs of fascists organized by them. The media arm of the rich, along with certain learned 'experts" in the pay of the state, invent every imaginable racist slander and slur against our community, in order to enhance their racist image of West Indians as a community of misers, beggars, criminals and hoodlums. They do this in order to launch attacks on us.

We, the West Indians, reject the racist and fascist lies and slanders of the rich and their state, and give ourselves the right to organize our community against their attacks. We firmly unite with the broad masses of ordinary Americans and the other immigrants who themselves constantly face the state-organized attacks. We see the CPSG as the embryo of the future mass defense organization of the West Indians, which we pledge to build.

Secondly, we have launched the CPSG to give fullest support to the struggles for the national liberation of our homelands, against colonialism, neo-colonialism, maintained by imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism and Soviet Social-Imperialism and their agents; to combat all the enemies of our people's struggle who, in the service of imperialism, spread the lie that our homelands are ''independent" and even "socialist".

We have launched the CPSG because we have seen that on these two fronts all kinds of opportunist traitors--agents of the rich--are betraying the interests of our people.


Towards these aims, we will publish this newsletter on a regular basis.

Caribbean Progressive Study Group P. O. Box 366

East Elmhurst, NY 11369 End.

[Back to Top]

Another Racist Attack on a Black Youth

(The following article is reprinted from The West-Indian Voice, Issue No. 4, February 1979)

Recently, another black youth, Ronald Holt, was brutally beaten by five racist thugs operating out of the Hassidim community. The youth explained that he was unjustly accused of interfering with a wire on a tree, while he was running an errand for his family. The thugs, led by a Rabbi, then proceeded to beat the youth with brass knuckles and lead pipes.

The police, responding after a long period, then subjected the youth to questioning. One officer remained seated in his car while the other investigated Ronald. All this time, the youth seriously hurt, was demanding medical attention. The youth, up to press time, was still hospitalized with a broken nose, fractured jaw and the threat of losing his right eye.

This is the standard treatment dictated by the racist state of the rich, their police and the racist gangs they organize to launch attacks on the black people. In the Hassidic community, the state has organized the "Hassidim Patrol" and the Jewish Defense League. This "patrol" is backed, financed, trained and legally armed by the state, specifically to attack the black people. This "patrol" has radio contact with the police precinct of the area with whom they coordinate their activities. This marks another of a series of racist attacks carried out against the black people of the Crown Heights area.

The racist state, their police and their racist gangs deserve-and receive nothing but hatred from all honest and freedom-loving men and women.

These racist attacks will neither be forgiven nor forgotten by the people of the community. There is no solution, only illusion, in discussing these racist attacks with the police department. There are those who, despite experience with the racist attacks--with the increasing repetitions, are lamenting about doing things "properly", "orderly", "through procedure". This is a wicked call for black people to keep the completely just resistance to the racist attacks, under the confines of the laws imposed by the racist state of the rich. It is a criminal attempt to have us respect the laws of the rich and to intimidate the truly patriotic members of the community, whose sentiment is to fight these racist attacks blow for blow.

The laws of the rich are racist, anti-people, anti-working class laws which deem it quite legal for the racist gangs to be registered as "community patrols" and even as "ambulance services", laws which deem it quite legal to use this pretext to provide these gangs with funds and training--because they carry out the racist orders of the rich and their police, to terrorize and humiliate the black people.

We can have no respect for the state and its laws. It was the courts of the rich that determined that the police murders of Randy Evans, Arthur Miller and numerous others were the fault of the victims or "unforeseen" and "unavoidable" accidents.

The police are no arbitrators in the racist attacks. It is they who organize and train the racist gangs to do their bidding.



[Back to Top]

Recent Court Decisions -- A Self-Exposure

(The following article is reprinted from The West-Indian Voice, Issue No. 4, February 1979.)

Recently, two grand juries reached their verdicts on the brutal, cold-blooded police murder of the seventeen year old Black youth, Randy Evans, on Thanksgiving Day, 1976, and the shooting of another Black youth by the police in Westchester County, who was permanently paralyzed.

In the case of Randy Evans, who was gunned down by the police right outside his home, it was decided that there was no criminal intent and the officer was freed from indictment. The bourgeois press has, for a long while, floated the absurd story that the officer might be mentally ill, in order to exonerate the state of the racist crime.

In the instance of the youth in Westchester County, the police alleged that he was taken for a bandit they were pursuing. The youth was shot in the driveway of his home. The grand jury decided that the youth was to blame for the incident because it was later discovered that he had reason to avoid the police -- the racist state brought, as their evidence of this, some outstanding driving violations for his car.

We must firmly grasp what is actually taking place on this question of the racist attacks and murders of Black people by the state, and the gangs organized by them.

Using all sorts of absurd pretexts, the courts are declaring every day, that the cold-blooded murder of Black people is a legal thing. This is the significance of these court decisions which followed an equally absurd decision on the police murder of Arthur Miller, last summer. These decisions, apart from declaring the murder of Black people to be legal, are intended to create an atmosphere, whereby, the racist crimes of the state are considered and accepted as a casual thing by public opinion.

No amount of legal sweet talk and rigmarole can hide the wicked racist and fascist nature of these decisions by the state. Far from intimidating the people, these decisions can only arouse the deserved anger, contempt and hatred of the broad masses, of every honest man and woman, for the racist state of the rich.

These decisions are further confirmations that it is the rich and their state that is racist and anti-people to the core. The courts are the legal talk-shops of the rich, from where they legitimize and justify every attack on the people, every murder of the people by the state. There can be no justice for the people, in the courts of their oppressors --the monopoly capitalist rulers.

This is why it is criminal treachery for certain "community leaders" to preach their venom to the people of relying on the state or any part of it, and to excuse away the crimes of the state apparatus of the rich by suggesting to the people that the problem is some accidentally and mysteriously "mad" or "racist" individuals.


[Back to Top]

Record Unemployment for the Black Youth

According to official government figures, unemployment for black youth has reached colossal proportions. In February 1979, 35.5% of Afro-American youth 16 to 19 years-old could not find work. Last year, 445,000 young black people aged 16 to 24 sought a job but couldn't find one. The high rate of unemployment, which in real life even surpasses the government figures, starkly reveals the brutal oppression and racial discrimination carried out against the black youth.

The government's own official figures also expose the entire fraud of "reverse discrimination"--the racist and fascist lie that whites are supposedly being discriminated against in favor of Afro-Americans and other minority nationalities. The monopoly capitalists are floating the lie that the Afro-American youth are given preferential treatment and thus are able to get more jobs than white youth. The racist bourgeoisie floats this hitlerite propaganda in an attempt to incite racial animosity against the black people, to pit the masses against each other in order to divert them from waging mass struggle against the source of their problems, their common enemy, the capitalists.

All of this shouting about "reverse discrimination" is a big lie. In fact, black unemployment has been double that of whites for years, and today the relatively larger unemployment of black youth has greatly increased. For example, in 1954, unemployment for black teenagers was 16.5% and for white youth it was 12.1%. In February 1979, the unemployment rate reached 35.5% for young blacks and 13. 9% for young whites. These figures show the large-scale unemployment of both black and white youth and condemn the U.S. monopoly capitalist system for the oppression and poverty to which young workers of all nationalities in the U.S. are subjected. But the point here is to show on top of this the intolerable racial discrimination that is practiced against young black workers. These figures graphically expose the lies of the racist fanatics who shout about "reverse discrimination" against white people. They show instead that the discrimination against young blacks is greatly increasing, and that a steady, terrible deterioration in their conditions of life is taking place.

The Afro-American people and the black youth in particular are the target of savage oppression and all-sided attacks by the rich and their state. They are assaulted by police and state-organized fascist gangs, bombarded with the most degenerate drug and "disco" culture, thrown out of school and into the streets, and are forced into the worst-paying and back-breaking jobs, or into the U.S. imperialist military. At the same time, all kinds of racist propaganda is directed at the black youth in order to create public opinion against them and set them up for further attack.

On the question of unemployment among black youth, the bourgeoisie has been spewing forth a stream of vile racist propaganda to try to pin the blame for high unemployment on the black youth themselves. The capitalist media and various reactionary intellectuals, government officials and agency bureaucrats viciously charge that black youth "can't compete in the job market" because they lack the necessary skills, lack a proper "attitude" and "motivation" and are "too proud" for "menial labor"... that pays starvation wages. The fact of the matter is that the bourgeoisie continues to practice systematic racial discrimination against the Afro-American people in every aspect of life--employment, housing, education, and health care, etc. If a black youth suffers from poor health, or can't spell, etc, the rich blame it on the Afro-American people, on "poor family training", on "bad role models", and hint broadly that black people really may be inferior.

The problem of large-scale Afro-American youth unemployment is part of the general problem of unemployment, which is an inherent feature of the capitalist system and has grown to tremendous proportions. Millions of workers are regularly thrown into the streets by the bourgeoisie whenever there is an economic crisis Or even a slight stagnation of production. And today, when monopoly capitalism is in complete decay and is ripe for being overthrown, there is a general crisis of the capitalist system in which a large section of the population is left permanently unemployed.

The existence of a huge reserve army of unemployed workers is of great benefit to the exploiters and to their efforts to accumulate maximum profits. It threatens the jobs of the remaining employed workers and compels them to work harder for less under the threat of being fired and replaced by any one of the hundreds of unemployed who eagerly await to be hired outside the factory gates.

Furthermore, the U.S. bourgeoisie has always practiced racial discrimination against black people so that it can force them to accept the most low-paying and back-breaking jobs. This super-exploitation of the Afro-American people is a source of tremendous profits to the U.S. monopoly capitalist class. And they consciously and systematically organize the super-exploitation of and racial discrimination against the young black workers for precisely this reason.

For example, a study for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress recently called for the abolition of minimum-wage laws, or at least the creation of a lower minimum-wage law for teenagers. Combined with this it called for a reduction in the age when a youth can legally quit school, the loosening of child-labor laws, etc. --all in the noble-sounding name of "helping" young blacks to try to "break into the labor market". The Carter administration has already initiated a new "employment tax credit" scheme which allows capitalists who hire the "chronically unemployed" tax credit for up to $3 000 in wages paid during the worker's first year, and up to $1500 the second year. Thus Carter, that "friend of labor and minorities", is giving the workers' tax money to the capitalists to pay starvation wages to black youth while the capitalists get free labor and further maximize their profits. This shows that the government is not interested in the slightest in reducing the unemployment of black youth, but only in utilizing them where possible to maximize the profits of the capitalists.

The rich and their state hate the black people for their staunch resistance to capitalist exploitation, racial discrimination and violent repression, for their long history of heroic struggle including the great rebellions of the I960's. The capitalists particularly detest the black youth for their militant spirit and irrepressible rebelliousness--the very qualities treasured by all who oppose exploitation and oppression. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the Afro- American people, especially the youth; the president of Bethlehem Steel calls them a "time bomb". And he is right, they are a time bomb. The tremendous revolutionary potential of the Afro-American youth and people has been demonstrated repeatedly. The time is not far off when the Afro-American people, as part of the entire American proletariat and people, will rise up and overthrow the monopoly capitalist class, the most racist and fascist class in history, and establish a socialist society ruled by the working class. The establishment of socialism and the elimination of the exploitation of man-by-man will end racial discrimination and unemployment once and for all. End.

[Back to Top]

Wage Controls Are the Centerpiece of Carter's "Fight Against Inflation"

In April 1978, capitalist chieftain Carter launched his "anti-inflation" program. Right from the start, Carter's aim has been to step-by-step prepare the conditions for mandatory wage controls similar to the controls implemented by the hated fascist Richard Nixon in 1971. But whereas Nixon imposed compulsory controls in one fell swoop, Carter has taken a step-wise approach. In April 1978 he began to push his Phase I "voluntary" wage guidelines whereby pressure was exerted on the proletariat to "voluntarily" limit their wage increases to 5.2-5.6 percent. Carter backed up this "voluntary" program of wage-cutting and suppression of the workers' movement with the dictation of a 5.5 percent wage cap on the federal employees, the compulsory arbitration forced on the postal workers and the use of the Railway Labor Act to break the strike of 440,000 railroad workers. But the struggles of these workers, the school teachers, and others to resist the ravaging effects of the 10 percent 1978 inflation rate smashed Carter's Phase I program.

So on October 24, 1978 Carter announced his Phase II "voluntary'' guidelines, adding new measures of compulsion to his earlier Phase I program. Carter also raised the wage guideline to 7 percent, to which the workers are supposed to restrict their wage and fringe benefit increases, as well as any COLA adjustments up to 6 percent a year. Carter's Phase II was designed as a bludgeon against the approaching contract struggles of the truck drivers, rubber, electrical, garment, auto and other workers. It is a wage-cutting and strike-breaking program pure and/simple, designed to shift the burden of the continuing economic crisis onto the workers and to realize maximum profits for the capitalist employers.

For months, just as Nixon did eight years ago, Carter has been swearing on a stack of bibles that he has no intention or desire to impose mandatory wage controls. At the same time, through the administration of the "voluntary" Phases I and II, an entire bureaucratic apparatus is being established to implement mandatory controls in the future. Mandatory wage controls are a fascist decree by the bourgeois state to cut wages, increase the exploitation of the workers and fatten profits. They bring all the forces of the state apparatus out into the open against the entire working class to suppress its struggles and openly dictate a single, standard wage-cut.

Today, as part of his preparations for compulsory wage controls, "friend of labor" Carter is yelling to high heavens claiming that if inflation isn't halted by cutting workers' wages, a "new recession" will take place. These being the supposed alternatives, the American people are expected to shrink in horror from the prospect of recession and thank the lord that savior Jimmy is around to save us with compulsory wage controls. As a newspaper with such impeccable bourgeois credentials as the Wall Street Journal put it regarding the introduction of Phase II: if "fits perfectly as the necessary precursor to eventual formal controls. All of the bureaucracy is being put in place, all of the rules are being made, the policy foundation is being laid by statements like Wage-Price czar Kahn's reluctant admission that forced to choose he would take controls over recession. On the basis of all the facts at hand, in short, the strategy seems to forecast the administration's behavior". On March 23, 1379 the New York Times attributed to Kahn the statement that the administration would deny plans to impose wage and price controls even if it planned to impose them. Kahn added, "But I would not administer such a program, period." The monopoly capitalist government in the U.S. is held in complete contempt by the American people for their utter lack of honesty and completely lying character, but rarely do the culprits admit to their lying so openly. The U.S. News and World Report of April 2, 1979 quoted an anonymous White House policymaker as saying, "The Council on Wage and Price Stability will slowly back itself into a mandatory control plan".

Mandatory wage controls are the aim and program of the entire bourgeoisie and all of their labor traitors. This can be seen by the fact that the main "opposition" to Carter's Phase II has come from AFL-CIO kingpin George Meany -- whose sole complaint is that he wants full mandatory controls immediately, not later!


The top labor bureaucrats, Fitzsimmons of the Teamsters, Fraser of the United Auto Workers and Meany of the AFL-CIO, fully support Carter's wage controls. The top labor aristocrats are in an alliance with the Democratic Party "friends of labor" in opposition to the basic interests of the proletariat. Their only disagreement with Carter is over the speed at which fully mandatory controls are imposed.

Teamsters chief Fitzsimmons was the first trade union hack to indecently jump out to endorse Carter's Phase II controls. He said that "I am sure that the two million Teamster members and their families will do their share to assist in resolving this difficult problem", that is, "if this program establishes some credibility on the price side" etc. In other words he said that he would gladly go all out to make the truck drivers willingly sacrifice and accept a wage-cut, if the capitalists "establish some credibility" and create the impression that they too are sacrificing and holding down prices. He has in mind a big sell-out of the entire proletariat because Carter has been banking heavily on suppressing the truck drivers in a struggle that is sure to be a major test of Carter's wage controls.

We can see how Fitzsimmons echoes the basic ideological justification for wage controls that the Carterites present. This is the "equality of sacrifice" hoax, whereby all should sacrifice to end inflation, capitalists and workers alike. The capitalist spokesmen and trade union hacks are shouting for "equality of sacrifice" so as to pretend to be impartial and to blame government, business and labor equally as the causes of inflation. But what in practice is the sacrifice asked of each ? Government is to clean up its backyard by--cutting government employees' wages. Business is to make a show of restraining price increases, and of limiting the salaries of millionaire executives a little--and by cutting the workers' wages. And of course labor is to voluntarily accept--a cut in wages. This is the "anti-inflation" program that the labor lieutenants of the bourgeoisie are approving: suppression of the working class movement and further impoverishment of the workers for the sake of increasing the capitalists' profits.

While Fitzsimmons openly supports Carter, Meany does so in a more concealed fashion. He announced his sham "opposition" to Carter's Phase II controls complaining that "voluntary" controls weren't good enough and that mandatory ones were needed. Meany bases his call for "full and fair" mandatory controls on the contention that Carter's semi-mandatory controls are "unfair and inequitable" in that they don't control prices, profits, interest rates and all sources of income equally. (So here we also find the "equality of sacrifice" nonsense.) On March 24, 1979 Meany stated: "The only answer is full and complete controls on the price of everything and the income of everybody". Meany paints mandatory controls carried out by the capitalist state in glowing colors as the way to fairly regulate prices, profits, interest rates and other sources of income. With a straight face no less, he tells the workers to believe in the honesty, even- handedness, and all-round saintly features of the capitalist politicians; to believe that the capitalist state will disassociate itself from the class struggle and become an impartial referee in the struggle between capital and labor. He knows full well that this is a hoax, that under Nixon's completely typical wage- "price" controls wages were restrained and locked into three year contracts, so that when the price controls were lifted prices skyrocketed out of sight. Meany knows this because he called for way in advance and helped administer Nixon's fascist wage-"price" controls against the proletariat.

Thus Meany and the AFL-CIO fully support Carter's wage controls on the essential matter of cutting the workers' wages and only "differ" with them in that Meany demands mandatory controls right away to cut wages still more effectively.

That particular breed of trade union hack typical of the UAW, the social democrats headed by Douglas Fraser, also support Carter's wage controls. In fact, Fraser, who presents himself as the liberal opposition to Meany in the ranks of the labor bureaucracy, has collaborated the most openly with Carter's Phase II. In a special meeting, the UAW Executive Board voted unanimously to support it. And Fraser himself also echoed the refrain of Carter's gang of "inflation fighters" that if Phase II controls failed, mandatory controls would be the only alternative to recession. Thus Fraser and the UAW not only agree with Carter's basic program to eventually implement fascist, compulsory wage controls, but also agree with Carter's step-by-step tactics of achieving them.

Fraser also stated that the "wage insurance plan" that Carter introduced as a "last minute sweetener for labor" will remove the workers "only legitimate reason not to cooperate with Phase 11," (See below on the question of "wage insurance".)

So we can see that the main labor lieutenants of the capitalist class all support Carter's wage controls, but have slight differences of opinion over whether these controls should be mandatory right at this time, or later, in the near future. This is a graphic illustration of the political alliance between the top trade union bureaucrats and the "friends of labor" democrats for the suppression of the proletariat. When they "oppose" Carter's "voluntary" controls or raise reservations about them for not having "enough credibility on the price side", they do so not for the purpose of calling upon the workers to rise in mass struggle and resist the capitalists' wage-cuts, not for the purpose of contemptuously defying the dictate, of the capitalist state. They do so for the purpose of strengthening the state, for calling on the bourgeoisie to suppress the working class outright with mandatory controls. And more and more, the trade union hacks yearn for mandatory controls because in the face of the February 15.4% annual rate of inflation, these traitors are having a difficult time trying to "sell" the workers on the benefits of "voluntarily" sacrificing and submitting to a 7% wage raise--an over 8% decline in real wages!

Fitzsimmons was lamenting this situation when he described the predicament he and the other labor traitors find themselves in to a NY Times reporter on March 21, 1979: "I understand bank profits went up by 115%. What people don't realize is that the membership of our union is more enlightened than ever before. When you are head of the union you have to realize that." Unable to fool the "enlightened" workers with lies and deception, the trade union bureaucrats long for the state machine to step in and suppress the workers outright, to save the labor traitors from the wrath of the proletariat.


We previously noted that Fraser supported Carter's Phase II, specifically the "wage insurance" scheme. He does so because it assists the traitors a great deal in "selling" the workers on the benefits of sacrificing their wages for the greater good of capitalist profits. But Carter's Phase II provision for "wage insurance", this "last minute sweetener for labor", is a big fraud. It allegedly would protect workers who held their wage and fringe benefit increases to 7%. If inflation exceeded 7% these workers would be compensated in tax credits for the amount by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) exceeded 7%.

It should be pointed out that the workers would be compensated with tax credits from their own tax money, which means that they are not being compensated at all. Instead, the capitalists would in effect receive a subsidy from the state in that they would be able to get away with paying the workers lower wages. In addition, this "wage insurance" would be computed on the basis of the CPI, which minimizes the inflation rate, thus short-changing the workers. Furthermore, it would contain a yet-to-be specified cap, so that if inflation exceeds a certain amount, the workers would cease to be "insured". Not only this, but the "wage insurance" award itself would be subject to taxes. Moreover, once the worker had received his "insurance", it would not be figured into his base rate of pay but would have to be won the next time his contract came up for re-negotiation. And to top it all off, Congress has not even passed the "wage insurance" program and it is hopelessly bogged down in the House Ways and Means Committee. One reason Congress is reluctant to pass it is because, as one labor bureaucrat noted, "if it should fail... citizen disillusionment with the government's ability to meet economic problems will increase." The "wage insurance" program is a fraud designed to fool the workers, a tool used by the labor traitors to convince the workers to accept wage-cuts. Without this tool of deception, the labor traitors would expose themselves even more openly for supporting Carter's wage controls, more openly reveal the fact that they are participants in the offensive of the rich against the working class.


Carter's "wage-price controls" are a complete fraud as far as stopping inflation is concerned, since they don't deal with the cause of inflation. Wage controls cannot stop inflation. A general increase of wages doesn't even affect the general level of prices, but only reduces profits. Conversely, wage-cuts such as those that Carter is trying to ram down the throat, of the workers' movement do not lower the general level of prices, but only increase profits. The level of wages is completely irrelevant to the loss of value of the dollar.

Price controls too are a fraud. In and of themselves, price controls cannot stop inflation because rising prices and inflation are caused by definite economic laws, which cannot be waved away by government decree. Without expropriating monopoly capital, the laws of monopoly capitalism remain in effect. In fact the capitalists don't intend to control prices. They use price controls to at most temporarily restrain prices for a short period, after which the prices zoom up at an accelerated rate to make up for lost time. Meanwhile the workers would be locked into three-year contracts at low rates of pay increases. This is what happened after Nixon's wage-price controls.

Today prices are rising at an astronomical rate. Carter's right-hand man Kahn is worried that this will "make it very hard" to get the workers to "voluntarily" comply with the 7% wage guidelines. ' To make up for this defect and try to create the impression that prices are in fact being controlled, Kahn said that the administration will move aggressively against companies that are violating the price guidelines. How? 15 specialists will inquire over the telephone to see if various companies are complying with Carter's price standards. If they admit to being naughty, then their names will be turned over to Kahn's COWPS. Then, after they've had two chances to change their naughty ways, and are still in violation, their names will be made public (!). Such a penalty! Surely this is a violation of the "human rights" of the monopoly capitalist dictators! The workers are to be made to starve with wage-cuts, have their strikes broken by the iron fist of the state, thrown into jail, etc., while the monopoly corporations will pay the penalty of "publicity". Such is the fraud of Carter's (extremely voluntary) "price controls".

Carter's wage controls have absolutely nothing to do with fighting inflation or curbing price increases. They are a pure and simple tool to fight the workers, suppress their strikes, cut their wages and fatten capitalist profits. A few recently announced statistics shed light on this fact. Carter announced his "voluntary" wage controls in April 1978. Since October 1978 the real wages of the workers, their spendable income after taxes, have declined by almost 1.5%. This is wage-cutting with a vengeance! Conversely, capitalist profits in 1978 increased at a soaring 16% rate over that of 1977. This is the "equality of sacrifice" of the bourgeoisie! And the rate of inflation in the fourth quarter of 1978 was over 11%, and has now reached an annual rate of 15.4% in February 1979. This is "fighting inflation"! Such are the benefits to the American people of Carter's wage-"price" controls! End.

[Back to Top]

No! To Re-Introduction of the Draft!

The bloodstained U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie is today carrying out the most feverish militarization of American society in its preparations for aggressive wars to achieve world domination. U.S. military expenditures have reached all time highs. The imperialist state has amassed a huge arsenal of the most modern weapons of death and destruction. Oil storage is being increased in preparation for the event that normal oil supply routes are cut off. As well, the monopoly capitalist money bags are trying to draw the proletariat and working masses into its war psychosis and prepare the American youth to become cannon fodder in its next aggressive adventure against the proletariat and peoples of other countries. The current saber-rattling debates on re-introducing the draft to build a conscription army is the latest addition to the militarization and war preparations of the bourgeoisie.

In the last few months the House and Senate have been flooded with bills and proposals ranging from setting up the mechanism for establishing the draft to plans for drafting 200,000 men a year. There is even talk of establishing a program of compulsory national service for all youth. "Peacenik" Jimmy Carter is leading the warmongering chorus. He has promised to re-establish the Selective Service System on a full functioning basis and has requested a budget of $1.7 million in 1979 and $9. 8 million in 1980 for this purpose.

All of these plans have but one single purpose and that is to re-establish the mechanism to be able to quickly amass a huge force of American youth to serve as cannon fodder in the imperialist wars of the monopoly capitalist class. Already today the U.S. imperialists have a huge aggressive military force over two million strong, with the most modern weapons and military bases all over the world. But in the conditions of increasing contention with Soviet social- imperialism for world domination and with the development of anti-imperialist revolutions such as in Iran, the monopoly capitalists fear that they do not have enough human meat to be chewed up by their military adventures, so they want to re-introduce the necessary laws and machinery by which to force the sons and daughters of the American workers to become the cannon fodder of their imperialist slaughters.

The re-introduction of the draft is another fascist measure being introduced by Carter against the American people. In the 1960's and early 70's a huge revolutionary mass movement developed against the U.S. aggression in Southeast Asia. In their millions the American people rose up in one revolutionary mass action after another. ROTC buildings were burned. Militant actions were carried out against draft boards, as hundreds of thousands of youth heroically resisted serving in the aggressive U.S. war machine. Large numbers of youth organized resistance inside of the army putting out anti-war leaflets and papers right on the U.S. bases, staging demonstrations, organizing rebellions in the stockades, and carrying out mass refusals to go into combat. With the defeat of the U.S. imperialist aggression by the Indochinese peoples, and with the continuing massive sentiment of the American people against the U.S. aggression in general and its huge aggressive war machine in particular, the bloodstained monopoly capitalists temporarily ended the draft in an effort to pacify the American people and to trick them into believing that American imperialism genuinely wanted peace. Now all of the "peace" mongering of Jimmy Carter et. al. has shown its true face as nothing but imperialist pacifism Nothing but peace in words, and rabid militarization and war preparations in deeds.

The U.S. bourgeoisie knows that they cannot get the American youth to "volunteer" for imperialist aggression, so they are re-establishing the laws and mechanisms by which to force the youth to serve the aggressive designs of U.S. imperialism.



[Back to Top]

Carter's "Anti-Inflation'' Budget: Starve the People and Prepare for War

Carter's ''anti-inflation" budget, which was presented in January and is pending Congressional debate, is a budget of the capitalist offensive to shift the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the working masses. Carter, the avowed "friend of labor and the minorities", the "human rights" preacher and advocate of "peace", has proposed a federal budget of increased capitalist exploitation and starvation for the masses and increased military spending for imperialist war. His budget provides for wage cuts and wage controls, a brutal productivity drive against the workers and increased unemployment. It is also a budget of runaway inflation, and crushing taxes for the working masses and handouts and "tax relief" for the large corporations and banks.

The Carter administration has declared "combating inflation" as its "number one priority". And it is under this pretext that Carter is demanding "sacrifices" from the working class and people -- wage cuts, speed-up, lay-offs and skyrocketing prices and taxes. However, such "sacrifices" extracted from the working masses have nothing to do with reducing inflation. And the Carter administration does not even claim it can eliminate inflation, but only pretends to want to control it. In fact, the "restraint" and "sacrifices" Carter is demanding from the working people only mean greater riches and profits for the capitalist billionaires.


Included in Carter's budget proposal are funds for "real-wage insurance", a so-called "sweetener" to cram his anti-working class program of wage controls down the throats of the workers. Wage cuts for the workers through wage-price controls is the centerpiece of Carter's "anti-inflation program". The Carter administration's Phase II "wage guidelines" require that the workers restrict their wage and fringe benefit demands to 7% a year. With inflation running at the official rate of 15% in February, these are guidelines for drastic wage cuts against the workers. Penalties are provided for those companies which fail to impose these "guidelines" on the workers and if the workers still refuse to submit to these "guidelines", outright mandatory wage controls are waiting in the wings to outlaw by government decree the strikes of the workers for higher wages in the face of soaring inflation.

However, the Carter administration has added to these fascist measures to suppress the workers and cut their real wages, a proposed "wage insurance", what is cynically described as a "sweetener for labor". According to Carter, the workers should passively accept wage cuts because his "wage insurance" "removes their only legitimate reason not to cooperate". Under this hoax, the workers are being told to keep their wage increases below 7% with the promise that if the Consumer Price Index rises above 7%, the Workers will be compensated for their loss with federal tax money. Thus, the workers' base pay will be in effect frozen, leaving the workers' wages further and further behind the rate of soaring inflation. By this means, instead of the workers waging a struggle to increase their wages to keep pace with inflation, their wages will be partially subsidized through the workers' tax dollars for the benefit of- the capitalist employers. Furthermore, this "wage insurance" will not actually cover the cost in real wages nor cover all sections of the workers. Workers' earnings over a $20,000 limit will not be "insured" and the "insurance" only covers to a maximum 10% rate of inflation. Moreover, it will remain a "promise" which Congress can eliminate at will after the workers are locked into three-year contracts and their wage scales have dropped even further behind the high cost of living.

Also to convince the workers to submit to wage controls, Carter has ordered limiting the wage increases of hundreds of thousands of federal employees to 5. 5%. Cutting the wages of federal employees on the road to imposing wage controls on the entire working class is what Carter means when he declares that "only through its leadership and its example can the Federal Government secure this cooperation" for his anti-working class wage controls program.


In his budget proposals Carter called for "careful attention to efficiency and productivity" so as "to achieve our most important priorities with less money and fewer people". Thus, along with the capitalists' onslaught against the workers' wage levels, Carter is championing the capitalists' productivity drive; a drive "to achieve our most important priorities"-- realizing the maximum rate of profit for the capitalist billionaires --by imposing terrible speedup and increased workloads on the backs of the workers. Of course, this further sweating of the workers in the name of "productivity growth" is also pushed as a remedy for inflation. But this hoax is only a rehash of the "higher wages cause inflation" lie.

Carter's budget message places special emphasis on "productivity growth" and proposes increased spending in the "basic research" portion of the budget to study how to increase the intensity and productivity of the workers' labor. The Carter administration has also set up a National Productivity Board to direct the capitalists ' productivity drive in both the public and private sector. An example of the "efficiency" that the Carter administration is working for is its hospital "cost containment" program to not only reduce hospital services but also to put even more unbearable workloads onto the hospital workers. On the front of the exploiters' productivity drive, the government is again "demonstrating leadership" with Carter's budget proposals to reduce the federal workforce and increase the "efficiency" of the low-level civil servants, maintenance workers, etc. The recently enacted Civil Service Reform Act contains provisions to make it easier to fire and harass the workers to "increase efficiency", or as Carter put it, "to reward those who do a good job and correct or remove those who do not" -- which means a "reward" of increased workloads for "those who do a good job" and firings and harassment for the rest.


Carter's budget proposals call for the immediate elimination of 200,000 CETA jobs and reducing federal workforces by tens of thousands of employees. Gone are the Democratic Party election time pledges of "full employment". Carter has declared the "fight against inflation" to be the "number one priority", while the "fight against unemployment" has supposedly already ended in victory...with 5.8% of the workforce (six million workers!) officially out of a job! Following the standard Republican Party and "big business" rhetoric of "cutting government spending" to "reduce inflation", the Carter administration, the so-called champion of "labor and the minorities", now Admits that it is quite willing to have an increase of unemployment to 6.2% of the workforce by the end of 1979.

The proposed cutbacks of 200,000 CETA jobs exposes the essence of the government's fraudulent "jobs" programs. 'Three and four years ago with the onslaught of the capitalist economic crisis and with some ten million unemployed, the "pro-labor" Democrats, in alliance with the traitorous trade union hacks and sold-out "leaders" of the black people, were campaigning feverishly for a series of slave-labor "jobs" programs such as the Humphrey- Hawkins bill and the Welfare Reform Act in the name of achieving "full employment". These false promises of "full employment" are aimed not at "creating jobs" but at diverting the mass struggle against the high levels of joblessness. These "jobs" programs themselves are in the main slave-labor schemes for reducing regular workforces by replacing them with low-paid trainees and with impoverished welfare recipients forced to work for their benefits at literally below minimum wage. How little these "jobs" programs have to do with eliminating the capitalist ulcer of mass unemployment can be seen with Carter's proposal to cut back 200,000 CETA jobs. This will mean both permanent cutbacks in the regular workforces as well as depriving the CETA workers themselves of their meager livelihood, throwing them back into the multi-million army of unemployed.


Carter's "anti-inflation" budget of attack on the working masses is in fact a budget of soaring inflation and increased taxes. Like all lying capitalist politicians, Carter promises that by imposing austerity measures on the masses he will "balance the budget" to "control inflation". But in fact, Carter's budget proposals include a huge deficit of over $30 billion and all the bourgeois economists agree that this figure will prove to be a gross underestimation. Carter boasts that his administration is on the way towards a "balanced budget" while at the same time he proposes enormous inflationary deficits surpassed only twice in history by the record deficits at the end of the Nixon-Ford administration.

It is the financing of these tens of billions of dollars of federal deficits and the rampant speculations of the financial oligarchy that cause inflation, the depreciation of the currency. Through inflation the monopoly capitalist class, as a class acting through its state apparatus, effects a general cut in the wages of the workers. And it can be seen from Carter's budget proposals that neither Carter nor any other flunkey of monopoly capital has any intention of eliminating inflationary budget deficits which further impoverish the masses and swell the profit margins of a handful of monopoly financiers.

Carter's lying claims about "balancing the budget" are also demagogy to justify imposing an even more crushing tax burden on the masses. Already the workers are being taxed to death, losing a third of their wages in taxes to finance the reactionary and parasitic activities of the monopoly capitalist state, the soaring military budget, etc. Carter's budget for fiscal year 1980 includes an increase of $47 billion in taxes for a $502.6 billion federal budget and the projections for fiscal year 1981 even dwarf this figure with an expected $72 billion increase in tax levies. This proposed $47 billion increase in the tax burden more than doubles the average increase over the last decade.

These gigantic sums of tax money are being extorted from the workers while austerity measures are being taken against the masses. Social Security benefits are being cut back for some 400,000 recipients. A whole series of services (such as various education grants, health care programs, food programs, etc.) are now being cut back or scrapped. Many of these programs, which were developed in the past by the big bourgeoisie in their drive for maximum profits (for instance the Medicaid and Medicare programs to expand health care insurance and finance soaring costs for the health care monopolies, or the school milk program to subsidize the market for the dairy monopolies, etc.), are being cut back in favor of other more profitable expenditures and to the detriment of the masses.

At the same time, the direct handouts to the financial parasites and big monopolists are being expanded. Fifty-seven billion dollars, which amounts to 11.4% of Carter's entire budget, will be handed over to the big Wall Street bankers who own the monstrous federal debt of over $800 billion, towards interest payments alone. The fabulously wealthy oil monopolies, which continue to reap record billions by imposing phony "shortages" and soaring prices on the masses, will receive a government handout of $7.8 billion for "research and development" and for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Carter's budget also includes for instance $8.2 billion of foreign "aid" to serve the penetration and exploitation of the U.S. neo-colonies by the multi-national corporations. And the biggest handouts of all are for the war industry monopolies and military contractors out of Carter's record-setting $125 billion military budget.


In his budget proposals Carter states that "there are some areas where we cannot make major reductions". And in the first place, these "some areas" are the arming and re-arming of U.S. imperialism's colossal machinery for war. "Defense" spending is the largest portion of the federal budget if the Social Security pension system is not included. (The fact that military expenditures consume by far the largest part of federal tax revenues is obscured by the inclusion of the Social Security pension system in the social services portion of the federal budget. Social Security is a retirement pension system and is not financed by federal taxes but by the dividends the workers pay into this pension system. In 1968 Social Security was combined with the federal budget to facilitate the plunder of this pension fund by the financial parasites. However, when this pension fund with $115 billion of benefits in 1980 is separated from the federal budget as in the past, military budget is fully 30% of federal expenditures.) The military is the only major section of the budget which continues to rapidly expand. This enormous budget for the means of mass slaughter and devastating war is a record budget in real terms (after discounting for inflation) during "peacetime", and is a tremendous exposure of the imperialist pacifism, the "peace" demagogy and "human rights" of the Carter administration.

Carter's budget includes plans for stepping up "combat readiness" in Europe and major expenditures for re-arming the aggressive NATO forces. Artillery shipments to the U.S. occupation forces in Europe are being jacked up by one-third along with an increased number of tanks and helicopters. Also, billions of tax dollars are earmarked for new nuclear weapons of mass slaughter such as the MX missile system and a 43% hike in expenditures for Air Force missiles, as well as new warships and 2,000 new jet fighters.

Carter's military budget shows that U.S. imperialism is not on the "retreat" and becoming "peaceful" as its lying apologists claim, but continues on the road of militarization and imperialist aggression and war. This arming and re-arming is part of the frenzied activities of U.S. imperialism to put down the revolt of the proletariat and peoples, to crush the movements for socialism and national liberation and to contend for the domination of the globe with the equally savage and aggressive Soviet social-imperial- ism and other imperialisms. To defend and expand the U.S. imperialist world empire, to protect the super-profits of the imperialist bourgeoisie, U.S. imperialism is preparing to slaughter the peoples in inter-imperialist war. It is cementing its warmongering alliance with the Chinese revisionists and is setting up the aggressive Washington-Tokyo-Peking axis. It is beefing up the NATO bloc and the reactionary neo-colonial regimes in its bloody grip. For these reasons, as Carter admits, on military matters U.S. imperialism "cannot make major reductions" but instead is arming to the teeth.

* * * * * *

In short, Carter's "anti-inflation" budget is a budget of the monopoly capitalist offensive, of intensified capitalist exploitation and oppression of the masses and preparations for war. This offensive is the common program of the big bourgeoisie and all its flunkeys, of the "big business" Republicans and "pro-labor" Democrats alike, of the sold-out trade union leaders and the opportunists of all hues. In the upcoming debates in the talk-shop Congress over Carter's budget, the only thing which will be debated is how best to plunder the masses and how to divide up the spoils. The only response of the proletariat and oppressed people to the capitalist offensive is revolutionary mass struggle -- revolutionary struggle against the anti-working class measures, wage cuts, speed-up, unemployment and growing impoverishment and against the war preparations of the monopoly capitalist ruling class. End.

[Back to Top]

Chinese Revisionists Extend Collaboration with the Fascist Regimes of Latin America

(The following article is reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency, March 12, 1979.)

Pursuing the reactionary course of their foreign policy and in the context of strengthening their relations with American imperialism and the most reactionary fascist regimes, the Chinese revisionists are intensifying still more their collaboration with the fascist regimes and juntas of Latin America in all fields, in their attempt to assist these reactionary cliques to come out of the profound political and socio-economic crisis they are in.

In this context is included also the present visit of the vice minister of the Chinese oil industry, Chang Veng-ping to Brazil, where he envisages to sign contracts with the "Braspetro" company, an affiliate of the "Petrobras" Brazilian oil company, in order to intensify the exploitation and production of crude oil in China. As well as this, two groups of Chinese experts of electric and nuclear energy are now in Brazil to discuss the Sino-Brazilian collaboration in these fields.

At the same time, the Chinese social-imperialists maintain friendship with the rabid and sanguinary fascist Pinochet. The news agencies report that since the coup d'etat in Chile in 1973, the Beijing (Peking --ed.) revisionist chieftains have granted to this fascist regime all-round aid, in the context of which is included also its supply with arms and military equipment. Certainly, these armaments do not have the aim of "defending national independence", as the chauvinist and racist circles of Beijing try to present it, but on the contrary to suppress with fire and sword the revolutionary movement of the working class of that country and any protest movement directed against the regime in power and American imperialism. This "solidarity" and this "solicitude", this close collaboration and this close friendship of the Chinese social-imperialist chieftains with the fascist regime of Santiago are clearly evident also in the economic field. The Chinese social-imperialists have granted to the fascist junta of Pinochet loans to the tune of over 200 million dollars. On the other hand, the news agencies point out that in the six years following the fascist coup d'etat in Chile, the trade exchanges between Beijing and Santiago have increased more than threefold and that now China holds third place in the import of Chilean copper. Soon after the signing of a three year agreement for the supply of China with 105,000 tons of Chilean copper, last November the Chinese revisionists signed another contract to purchase in Chile 120,000 tons of nitrates and other chemicals.

As well as this, in the conditions when the flames of the people's war against the dictatorial regime of Somoza in Nicaragua are assuming ever larger proportions, the Chinese social-imperialists are helping this sanguinary regime to come out of the difficult situation it is in. In this context is included the agreement signed last year between the Beijing social-imperialists and the fascists of Managua, according to which China bought 48% of the amount of cotton that country exports, becoming the chief buyer of that product from Nicaragua. End.

[Back to Top]

New Fraudulent Maneuver of Brazilian Reaction

(The following article is reprinted from the Albanian Telegraphic Agency, March 10, 1979.)

In its editorial of the January issue, A Classe Operaria, central organ of the Communist Party of Brazil, condemns the recent farce of General Figeiredo, who reported on the creation of the so- called new government, at the head of which he will take the reins of the military power in Brazil on March 15. The newspaper stresses that the members of the government are experienced people in the old policy, experienced with the abuses of public funds, with the manipulation of the statistical data and with the betrayal of the interests of the homeland.

There is no doubt, the article says further on, that the economic and social policy of the new government will be directed still more against the interests of the nation, the dependence on foreign capital will become more perceptible, the impoverishment of the working masses will continue at faster rates as a result of the wage freeze, increase of inflation and of the foreign loans of the country.

In face of the intensification of the opposition against the fascist regime in Brazil, the new chieftain of the Brazilian dictatorship Figeiredo is also resorting to lies and demagogy, but nothing, A Classe Operaria stresses, will save the Figeiredo government from failure and destruction. The masses are ever more resolutely expressing their determination to fight for their rights against the selling out of the interests of the nation by the generals, the banner of the struggle for political freedom, general and unlimited amnesty, for the abolition of all the extraordinary laws will be raised ever higher. Figeiredo and his government will meet the end they deserve. A people who are fighting for their rights will triumph. End.

[Back to Top]

Nicaraguan People Oppose the Somoza Dictatorship

(The following article is reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency, March 11, 1979.)

The pro-American dictatorial regime of Somoza in Nicaragua is receiving continued blows from the armed patriots at a time when the demonstrations of protest throughout the country have assumed vast proportions. Of late the patriotic armed forces have launched sudden attacks against the government troops in a series of cities of the country; they have laid ambushes, mined roads and bridges, etc. Meanwhile the broad masses of the people turned out in the streets of .the main cities to protest against the policy of violence and terror of the fascist dictatorship in power.

Neither the savage violence nor the demagogy of the Somoza regime which enjoys the all-round support of its boss, American imperialism, could break the mounting resistance of the Nicaraguan people against the dictatorial regime.

Panic-stricken, the police and army forces have intensified the campaigns of house searches and arrests, have increased the number of patrols in the streets of the cities and are committing numerous crimes. Recently a unit of the "National Guard" opened fire on a group of students in the suburbs of Managua, killing two of them. Meanwhile, Washington has undertaken a series of demagogical maneuvers, including also the so-called "talks of the opposition with Somoza", in order to deceive the Nicaraguan people and to preserve its neocolonialist interests in that country. However, the Nicaraguan people are not taken in by these actions of their enemy. American imperialism implements its predatory neocolonialist policy in Nicaragua just as throughout Latin America, thanks to its collaboration with the local feudo-bourgeoisie, with the reactionary regimes of the type of Managua. Therefore, the Nicaraguan people! arc courageously continuing their armed struggle to get rid of the dictatorial regime and the neo-colonialist domination of American imperialism. End.

[Back to Top]


The editorial staff of People's Canada Daily News conducted an interview recently with the delegation of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) to the Sixth Consultative Conference of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and the Revolutionary Rally in defense of the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the principles of proletarian internationalism, to be held in Montreal on March 31. Part one of this interview is printed below:

PCDN: Can you tell us about the resolution your Party recently passed on the question of "Mao Zedong Thought"?

RCPB(M-L): The Third Plenum of the Central Committee recently issued a communique in which it elaborated its views on the question of "Mao Zedong Thought". The communique announced that, after careful and detailed considerations and investigations on the question of "Mao Zedong Thought", the Central Committee concluded that "Mao Zedong Thought" was an anti-Marxist trend; that Mao Zedong had been a revolutionary democrat who had led the Chinese people in making advances in their struggle against imperialism and feudalism, but had never been a Marxist-Leninist. "Mao Zedong Thought" is an anti- Marxist trend that denied the characteristic of our era, that substituted pragmatism for Marxist-Leninist line and theory, that substituted eclectics for dialectics, and denied the hegemonistic role of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle. He had denied the hegemonistic role of the proletarian ideology and denied the basic characteristic of the bolshevik Party. It was decided after a number of months' investigation, investigation initiated by the First Congress of the Party held last year, that the time was now appropriate and correct for the Party to join with Marxist-Leninists throughout the world in taking an open stand against "Mao Zedong Thought". The Plenum stated that the struggle against all forms of modem revisionism -- Khrushchovite, Titoite and "Eurocommunist" -- was a crucial struggle for Marxist-Leninists. The struggle to expose "Mao Zedong Thought" was particularly important at this time. This was especially the case because of the fact that "Mao Zedong Thought" has been promoted as "the Leninism of our era", Leninism taken to an entirely new stage. As a result, this line had caused setbacks in the communist and workers' movement. Therefore it was a crucial task to expose the anti-Marxist-Leninist nature of this ideology. The Third Plenum concluded that "Mao Zedong Thought" was paying lip-service to Marxism-Leninism, was a hodge-podge of ideas with no Marxist-Leninist thread running through it. The Third Plenum stated that whilst the Party must accept responsibility for being part of the promotions of "Mao Zedong Thought" for a time, the Party, since its inception as the English Internationalists, had always been based on Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism.

PCDN: Could you comment or elaborate on the struggle that has taken place in your country to reconstruct the Communist Party based on Marxism-Leninism, the struggle to oppose the Khrushchovite betrayal and the degeneration of the Communist Party into revisionism?

RCPB(M-L): The proletariat first built the Communist Party in the early twenties, the Communist Party of Great Britain, with the assistance of the Comintern. The Communist Party of Great Britain was a revolutionary party for a number of decades. It made important advances in building the Party, developing the revolutionary movement and leading the proletariat on the revolutionary path. In the 1950's, particularly in 1952 with the launching of the "British road to socialism", modern revisionists usurped the leadership of the Communist Party of Great Britain, liquidated the revolutionary headquarters and its revolutionary ideology and line, and turned the Party into a revisionist party, a party of reform, a bourgeois party, and caused a most serious setback in the revolutionary movement, in the communist movement, for the British proletariat. For a number of years struggle continued by certain anti-revisionist elements inside the old Party, and in 1963 there occurred what our Party considers an important revolutionary split led by a man called Michael McCreary. He organized and led a number of anti-revisionist elements, split from the "Communist", (that is revisionist) Party of Great Britain to form the Committee to Defeat Revisionism and for Communist Unity (CDRCU). This committee in two years re-established the basic international and national Marxist-Leninist theoretical line of all major questions. It opposed Khrushchovite revisionism, it opposed the "peaceful and parliamentary road to socialism", it re-established the necessity for the Party to base itself on the industrial proletariat. On all other major questions, through its organs of work it re-established the basic Marxist-Leninist line after the revisionist betrayal. Unfortunately in 1965, McCreary died and following this, the anti-revisionist elements from the CDRCU, instead of moving on to the next stage, which McCreary would have had to solve if he had lived, which was to actually start rebuilding the Party, taking Marxism-Leninism back to the working class and people, and building and developing the revolutionary movement, they refused to carry this task forward. Instead, they did a number of things. Firstly, they stated that it was necessary to develop and do more investigational work and carry out more theoretical work before the task of building the Party, before the task of taking revolutionary ideas to people, and leading the struggle could be carried out. Secondly, they developed factionalism, splittism, and split into many tiny little groups and sects throughout the country, opposing the necessity to unite, to struggle to re-establish and rebuild the Party. In late 1966- early 1967, there was a second split from the CPGB. This was four years after the revolutionary split led by Michael McCreary. The people who split from the CPGB, the revisionist party, at this late period, set up a so-called Marxist-Leninist organization which, from its outset, was neo-revisionist. Whilst paying lip- service to being anti-revisionist, on all the major questions, such as their promotion of economism in the economic struggles of the workers; their labelling political struggles as a "diversion from the economic struggle; their opposition to building a genuine Bolshevik Party; their vacillatory stand towards modern revisionism; their glorification of the British bourgeois trade unions; their basic great power chauvinism; and their opposition to sound Marxist-Leninist theory. On these and all other issues, they followed from the outset a basic neo-revisionist line.

In August 1967, in London, the Historic Necessity for Change Conference was held. At this conference, the advanced sections of the revolutionary youth and student movement, the English revolutionaries, together with the Internationalists of the other countries which participated in the conference, took the solemn decision that it was upon their shoulders that the task of rebuilding the Marxist-Leninist Party was to be placed. And at the end of the conference, the organizational form for the establishment of a Marxist-Leninist center was brought about with the formation of the English Internationalists. Through its own efforts, through the spirit and revolutionary sentiment of the working class and people and through the most fraternal assistance from the Marxist-Leninist organizations in Canada, Ireland and America, this Marxist-Leninist center grew from strength to strength. By March 1972, the next stage had been reached in the reformation of the British Party, a very historic event in the communist and workers' movement in Britain, the formation of the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist). For many years, the Party has had as its basic line that there has to be one Party for the entire British proletariat, and over these years has been making the necessary internal and external conditions to bring this situation about. The First Congress of the Party was held last year. It represented a most important landmark in the struggle to rebuild the proletarian Party in Britain, the Congress where the Party's basic line on all of the major international and national questions was summed up and laid down. One of the decisions taken at the First Congress of the Party was that in the coming period it was necessary for the Party to resolve the problem of declaring one Party for the entire British proletariat. In the light of this decision of the Party's First Congress, in light of the developments in the national and international situation and in light of a number of external and internal conditions created by the Party, the recently held Third Plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of England (Marxist- Leninist) announced that the time was now ripe to declare the Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

Throughout its history, the Party has, from its inception as the English Internationalists, upheld Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. It was born out of the struggle, not only against modern revisionism, of a Khrushchovite type, it was born out of a struggle against all the "new left", Castroite, trotskyite and other opportunist trends, which were emerging in the late 1960's to disrupt and liquidate the revolutionary movement. It was also born out of the struggle against neo-revisionism, against those forces who pay lip-service to Marxism-Leninism, but who, on all major questions, refuse to make decisive political, ideological and organizational breaks with modern revisionism, with the modern revisionist methods of work and thinking. This struggle has continued, developed, and broadened throughout the history of our Party. Throughout this period, the Party has at all times firmly upheld and defended the purity of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, has always taken the attitude of striving to deal with and resolve the question of various other groups and organizations which have called or call themselves anti-revisionist, or Marxist-Leninist, from the standpoint of either trying to unite them around the Marxist-Leninist Party or openly expose them as being against Marxism-Leninism, revolution and socialism. Through engaging in this process, a number of things have been further clarified. Besides a number of individuals who have joined the Party's ranks, those groups which split from the revisionist party have been shown to have had no interest in actually uniting to rebuild the Party and participate in and lead the revolution in Britain. The whole opportunist spirit and line that was reflected and manifested in those groups during the Necessity for Change Conference, and shortly after this, that is, their opposition to uniting around Marxism-Leninism to rebuild the Party, has become more and more vivid, more and more clear throughout the last 11-12 years. Throughout this period, many of these groups, and even some so-called "parties", have even gone to the extent of blatantly refusing to answer letters or requests from our Party simply for meetings, just to have discussion to clarify various lines on national and international questions. What this shows is opposition to actually uniting around Marxism-Leninism to lead the revolution. This fact has become clearly expressed. The Marxist-Leninist face of these groups and organizations, as the class struggle has intensified and matured over the last few years, has been more and more exposed to reveal basic and open revisionist features. Firstly, the groups that went off into factionalism, "pre-party collectives" and so-called theoretical work after the death of Michael McCreary in 1965. By the 1977 period, all these groups in one way or another, or to one extent or another, adopted the revisionist "three worlds theory" as their basic guiding ideology. Secondly, the organization that emerged from the split from the CPGB four years after the split in 1963 and from its outset adopted a neo-revisionist line on all major questions is coming forward to uphold, to defend, the anti-Leninist theory of "Mao Zedong Thought", and to say that anyone who criticizes "Mao Zedong Thought" is better off in the camp of the Second International with Bernstein.

PCDN: This is the line they carry now?

RCPB(M-L): Yes, most definitely. On the question of the Marxist-Leninist movement, this has very much clarified the situation. Whilst our Party has since its inception upheld that it is the Marxist- Leninist center, it has nonetheless striven to either unite with or expose any of the groups or organizations that claim to be anti-revisionist or Marxist- Leninist. The various major so-called "Marxist- Leninist,f groups have, in the past two years especially, been openly exposed. They are coming forward now to openly espouse modern revisionist theories.

Because of the activity of the reactionary bourgeoisie, Khrushchovite revisionists, the trotskyites, and of the Chinese revisionists, etc., the situation in the country is that the Marxist-Leninist center, the subjective factors for the revolution, are still relatively weak and lagging behind the objective conditions in the country. The decisive task facing our Party is- to go all out to seriously strengthen the subjective factors of the revolution, to further build the Party, deepen its influence amongst the people, to further the struggle to defend the purity of Marxism- Leninism and proletarian internationalism, and to deepen and broaden the struggle against all forms of revisionism, especially against Khrushchovite and Chinese revisionism, which still have a large amount of influence in the communist movement in Britain. As a basic Marxist-Leninist principle, the proletariat must be in the leadership in the revolution, plus the fact that in Britain the industrial proletariat, the working class, is a very large percentage of the population and the crucial task of the Party is to build itself right in the heart of the working class, in the factories and other work places of the country.

The Party, at its Second Plenum, upheld the two basic tasks our Party has continuously put forward. Firstly, to further the work of bolshevizing the Party, building the Party in the heart of the working class, consolidating and preparing the Party comrades on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. The second task is to further extend the influence of the Party in the working class and the working people's movement, to further arm the working class with the Party's line, and to guide its struggles against monopoly capital along the path of revolution, towards the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Third Plenum of the Central Committee announced the adoption by the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) of the slogan, MAKE THE RICH PAY FOR THE CRISIS! and the Plenum considered that, at the present stage of the struggle, of the present upsurge of the struggles of the working class against monopoly capital, that this slogan presents the correct perspectives, the revolutionary path, the revolutionary alternative for the working class of making the rich pay for the crisis. The slogan was adopted by the Party in order to further the work of preparing, organizing and mobilizing the working class and guiding its struggles towards the revolution.

PCDN: Could you comment on the economic and political situation in Britain?

RCPB(M-L): The British monopoly capitalist system is characterized by a vast and very deep economic, political and all-round crisis. The British capitalist system, which was the major capitalist and colonial power of the last century, has increasingly throughout this century not only been most seriously affected by the crisis hitting the entire capitalist-imperialist world, but has also been most seriously affected by the increasing relative decline to other imperialist and capitalist powers of British imperialism and British monopoly capitalism, as a result of the uneven development of capitalism. This in no way has meant that the British monopoly capitalist class, the British imperialists, have become less ferocious. In fact, as the crisis is becoming intense and more severe, so the ferocity and violence which they have launched against the people, both in Britain and throughout the world (as can be seen in Ireland, in Zimbabwe, and in many other countries) has become even more intense. The Party states that British imperialism is still, and will always be until it is overthrown and destroyed, the hated enemy of the British working class and the world's people.

The economic crisis hitting the British monopoly capitalist ruling class is most severe, and every attempt that is made to solve the crisis and maintain its vast super-profits leads to ever greater, broader and deeper crisis in a very short period of time. The only solution that the reactionary bourgeoisie has to try to solve this crisis is to make the working class and people pay for it. In recent years, the attempts to make the working class pay for the crisis have become more and more extreme. This has forced serious hardships, serious deterioration in the living standards and the livelihood of the working class in the country. In the face of fast-rising inflation, the bourgeois governments in recent years, the Conservatives and Labor, have imposed, year after year, severe wage restraint policies onto the working class, causing very serious cutbacks in the living standards of the people. Since the Labor government came to power in 1974, even by its own watered-down statistics, prices have more than doubled. For the last year or more, unemployment has been more than 6 percent of the working population. According to the government's statistics, over 30 percent of the working population are classified as low-paid. Last year, for example, whilst inflation was running at 10-12 percent, The government tried to impose a meager 5 percent annual wage rise onto the working class. The previous year, with inflation at 17-20 percent, it imposed wage rises of only a meager 10 percent. On top of this, there have been drastic and serious cuts in the health services, education services and social services in the country, bringing about the most serious consequences and hardships for the working class and people. For instance, a large number of cities show rises in old diseases and health problems for the working people and for children; investigations show serious detrimental changes in the diet of the working people, and all round the working people are being forced to suffer terrible consequences in order to pay for this crisis. The response by the reactionary bourgeoisie to all these just demands of the working class and people, to oppose the consequences of the crisis being passed onto their shoulders is to prepare for fascism.

Whilst the British bourgeoisie still greatly uses its demagogy, still uses its labor aristocracy and its deception in attempting to maintain its vicious exploitative rule and impose the consequences of the crisis onto the backs of the people, more and more the path it is adopting is fascism, to try, through open and blatant force, to suppress the struggles of the people and to get the working class to pay for the crisis. On all fronts we see more and mote the fascization of the state occurring. Where the so- called "legal" rights exist for the working class and people, they are fast "legally" being taken away, curtailed by the bourgeois state. We see, for one example, in recent months and years, the rights of workers to picket are openly being curtailed by violent attacks of the British state and its reactionary police and through legislation being prepared by the government. The Canadian proletariat must have read of, as an example of this, the Grunwicks struggle in London, where over 500 workers were arrested in mass picketing. On all fronts, the state is increasing the amount of harassment and attacks, arrests, beatings, and so on of workers and people in the communities and the factories, those on strike, on pickets, etc. Secondly, you see increasing legislation to legalize this curtailment of the rights of the working class and people and increasing propaganda by all the representatives and agencies of the bourgeoisie for even greater curtailment of the rights of the working people. Thus, in the recent lorry drivers' strike, the militant strike which took place at the beginning of this year, all the representatives of the bourgeoisie were calling for the banning of the right to strike of the working class in certain key sectors of the economy and for blatant interference with the right of the working class to organize and fight back against capitalist exploitation. First of all, this shows that there is no basic democracy for the working class under the monopoly capitalist system. Secondly, it shows the extent that the British bourgeoisie, along with the bourgeoisie throughout the world, is developing fascism in order to make the working class pay for the bourgeoisie's crisis.

At the present time, the Labor government is the executive of the monopoly capitalist class. The Labor government is promoted by opportunists of all hues, by the Khrushchovite revisionists, by the trotskyites and various other opportunists, as a government that can be "pushed to the left", that can actually "serve the interests of the working class". Social-democracy, backed and supported by the modern revisionists, causes and has caused the most serious setbacks to the revolutionary struggles and the basic interests of the working class. What has been seen once again with the Labor government in power is that the Labor government and the Labor Party are institutions of monopoly capital, of the rich. The only basic difference between them and the Conservative Party, is that the Labor government and the Labor Party consider that a slightly greater degree of deception should be used in trying to maintain the rule of capital over labor, in trying to make the workers pay for the crisis. In particular, the Labor Party attempts to utilize the trade union aristocrats, the trade union bureaucracy, the trade union bigwigs, to a greater degree in trying to make the working class pay for the crisis. So, for instance, we see in recent periods, a reactionary "social contract" being formulated with the trade union aristocracy, which is nothing but a contract between the government and the trade union bigwigs, a contract to make the working class pay for the crisis.

As the struggle in the country is intensifying, once again the working class has seen increasingly, as has been expressed by the upsurge which has occurred in its strike movement, that the Labor government is a government of monopoly capital, and its deceptive so-called labor mask has been ripped off as it has many times in this century.

As the class struggle is intensifying in the country, what we are seeing in the political situation of the bourgeoisie is that, whilst there have been various political wranglings going on in Parliament, the political "differences" between the bourgeois parties, between the Conservative, Liberal and Labour Parties, are being increasingly dropped and their basic unity as parties of capitalism against the working class has been more and more exposed to the ordinary people. On all the major questions, whether it be on the question of Ireland or the question of wage restraint of the question of suppression of the trade unions or the question of support for U.S. imperialism, or the question of suppressing the struggle of the Zimbabwe people, whether it be on the question of support for racist attacks or the question of the growing fascization of the state, we see these parties of monopoly capital openly united, openly taking their stands against the working class.

The situation in the country is such that there is no such thing as a liberal bourgeoisie, or a progressive aspect of the bourgeoisie, or a progressive section of the bourgeoisie. What we see among all the sections of the ruling class, among all their respective parties -- Labour, Conservative, Liberals -- is motion towards fascism, growing attempts to make the working class pay for the crisis. While the movement towards carrying out fascization of the state is being manifested to one extent or another in all the policies and programmes of the main parties of the British monopoly capitalist class.

One further aspect of the situation in the country is the fostering and growth of the nazi movement. This is particularly true with the hitlerite National Front which the bourgeoisie is attempting to foster in the country, through the protection of the police, through propaganda of the media, through the promotion by all the bourgeoisie and protection by the bourgeois parties. And this nazi movement has a very specific role for the bourgeoisie. First to act as a spearhead for the bourgeoisie today for its attacks on the working class, national minorities, and all the people,in physical attacks and assaults on the people and in fascist and racist propaganda to the extent that the bourgeoisie and the state at this stage are not prepared to openly go. And secondly, the role of the nazi party is to be groomed for a time when the bourgeoisie may consider it necessary to cap its process of developing fascism and fascization of the state through the bringing to power an open nazi party.

So the situation in the country is that the class struggle is very fiercely intensifying, and the forces of the bourgeoisie and the forces of the proletariat are lining themselves up for the mighty battles which are developing in the country. To be continued.

[Back to Top]

The Iranian Working Class Came Out on the Battlefield, Overthrew the Shah and Shook the Capitalist World

[Zeri i Popullit masthead.]

The following article is reprinted from the Albanian Telegraphic Agency, February 18, 1979.)

Under the above title the newspaper Zeri i Popullit publishes an editorial, which reads:

In recent months the attention of world public opinion has been focused on the events in Iran, on the heroic struggle of the Iranian people to overthrow the bloodthirsty regime of the Pahlavi monarchy. Now that the democratic revolution has brought down the medieval feudalism and the fascist monarchy of the Shah, the revolutionaries, patriots and progressive people throughout the world ardently hail and admire the outstanding heroism of Iranian men, women, boys and girls, the determination and courage of the common people.

The Iranian people have achieved a victory of great historic importance. This marks a big stride on their road to freedom and democracy, their rise to a new level of emancipation and progress. It is certain that this victory will have a profound effect and serve as a basis for the battles of the future for the fulfillment of the people's ideals of complete national and social liberation.

The people's uprising in Iran constitutes a heavy blow for all the imperialist powers and especially for American imperialism, which, in practice, has controlled and run the regime of the Shah during the last 25 years. It is a heavy blow also for world capitalism, which up till now has profited from the submission of the Shah in order to plunder the Iranian oil and to exploit the Iranian people to the bone.

The fact is that the Iranian revolution has put the bourgeois and revisionist world into great disarray. Carter and his administration are upbraiding the CIA and the other intelligence organs because they did not foresee these events in time. The Western bourgeoisie is astonished how a whole people could rise in revolt at the peak of an oil boom. The Chinese social-imperialists are complaining that the Shah allegedly allowed foreign agents to enter the country and to confuse the masses.

The imperialists and the revisionists have not understood the social phenomena and they can never understand and interpret them correctly. They judge things according to rigid schemes created by their own anti-historical, selfish, class concepts. Their counter-revolutionary hatred does not permit them to analyze any social phenomenon objectively or to foresee any situation. Events always burst upon them like bombs going off in their hands.

The revolution in Iran is not and could not be the work of agents as the revisionists from Beijing pretend, nor the result of the modernization, as the Western politicians explain. It is the result of the explosion of many contradictions of the feudal-bourgeois Iranian society, an explosion of the people's indignation and hatred accumulated for scores and scores of years against the tyranny of the Shah and imperialist domination, and is the result of the determination of the people to change the miserable life which the ruling and exploiting upper classes have imposed on them.

From various sides efforts are being made to give the Iranian revolution a religious color. Of course, it is impossible to deny the subjective influence of the Shiite religious sect in the events of Iran, and it has played a positive role in the overthrow of the feudal regime of the Pahlavi empire. But it was not religious ideology which led the broad masses of the people in the uprising and the fight against the Shah. The democratic aspirations of the overwhelmingly secular masses of the people of Iran, the political slogans which aroused the people to fight, the concrete object for which the masses are fighting cannot be identified with the ethico-theocratic demands of the Islamic doctrine. In appearance, the people of Iran may seem to be believers, but in action and precisely in this revolution, they showed themselves to be very advanced and very objective. They rose and shed their blood for the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a democratic republic in the country, for the nationalization of the oil and its use in favor of the development of the national economy and the people, for putting an end to dependence on foreign capital and the breaking off of all enslaving economic, military and political agreements with foreigners, be they American, Soviet, British or Chinese, for the strengthening of a sovereign and independent state, for freedom of the press and of assembly, for the elimination of the feudal corruption and the punishment of oppressors and exploiters, for social equality and justice, etc., etc.

It is clear to the peoples of the world that the inspiration of the Iranian revolution is not a religious inspiration. Its inspiration was the powerful democratic and progressive current of the masses, thirsting for a genuine agrarian revolution, for a truly progressive cultural and educational revolution as well as for profound transformations to eliminate the backwardness of the people. Those courageous women and girls who shed their blood in clashes with SAVAK and. the Imperial Guard came out in the street not to preserve the veil, nor to defend their domestic prison, but to eliminate them. Therefore the great problem raised here was that of the liberation of the workers, the peasantry, the women and the youth.

The aim of this hostile campaign is to create the opinion that the events in Iran do not represent a revolution which can serve as an example. International capitalism is trying to present this revolution as a reaction of religious chiefs and "fanatical" masses of believers against the "industrialization" and "modernization" of the life of the country undertaken by the Shah. It is cynically pretending that such revolutions, on which it puts the label "Islamic", allegedly hinder not only the progressive development of the countries in which they occur but also the whole "international society".

World capitalism is insisting strongly on the word "Islamic" and distorting the true character of the revolution in Iran because it wants to set the peoples one against the other, to set the Muslim believers in opposition to the Christian believers. It is laboring to describe the Iranian, Arab and other peoples as backward and fanatical peoples and to give their anti-imperialist liberation struggle a retrograde tinge. But the Iranian revolution demonstrated clearly that the fundamental question of the peoples of this zone, that which requires and forms their unity, is the struggle for liberation from the feudal bourgeois yoke and the domination of the American and Soviet superpowers and from Israel. It is the imperialist superpowers, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, and China which are inciting the division of the Arab and Persian peoples and not permitting them to gain and safeguard their freedom, independence and sovereignty.

However the tendentious assessments and base slanders of those who have plundered and oppressed the countries of the Orient cannot deceive anyone. Whatever may be said, the events in Iran are the result of social antagonism and not religious.

Proceeding from the fundamental tendencies of present day world development, the PLA has stressed that the question of the revolution and the liberation of the peoples is not just an aspiration and a desire, but also a problem taken up for solution. The uprising of the Iranian people is confirmation of this. But this will not be either the first or the last. The example of Iran will certainly exert an influence and will be followed by other countries. The conditions created in many countries now make revolutionary outbursts inevitable. "In general", Comrade Enver Hoxha has stressed, "the situation today is like a volcano in eruption, a scorching fire, a fire which will destroy the oppressing and exploiting ruling upper classes."

The people's uprising in Iran, in which the broad masses, the working class, the progressive youth and the women take part, has confirmed the Marxist-Leninist theses defended by Comrade Enver Hoxha in his book, Imperialism and the Revolution, in regard to the revolutionary situations today which are being ceaselessly created in many countries of the world and about the maturing of the objective and subjective factors of the revolution. First of all the events in Iran showed that the motive force in this revolution of a democratic character was the Iranian proletariat, which came out in the streets and shed its blood in battles with reaction, displaying its own invincible strength not only in the struggle against the Shah but also against foreign imperialism.

The present events in Iran have provided very valuable lessons not only for the people in that country, but also for the others. Contrary to the claims of the bourgeoisie and the revisionists, they confirmed the fundamental thesis of Marxism-Leninism strongly defended during all this time by our Party, that in order for the revolution to triumph, for the people to be liberated from national and social bondage, it is categorically indispensable that the working class must come out on the battlefield. Comrade Enver Hoxha has said, "the working class constitutes the decisive force of the development of society, the leading force for the revolutionary transformation of the world.... It remains the main productive force of society, the most advanced class and more interested than any other in national and social liberation, and socialism, the bearer of the finest traditions of revolutionary organization and struggle".

In Iran it was the working class which faced up to the tanks and the machine guns of the Shah. Above all it was its general strike and especially the strike of the oil workers which paralyzed the whole life of the country. Demonstrations and manifestations against the Shah had been held before, but only when the oil pumps stopped working, when the trains ceased to run and the power stations cut off the current, that was when the earthquake shook the foundations of the feudal ruling class, the Shah took off to his friend in Morocco and the Bakhtiar government was overthrown. The working class showed that it was the real force in the country and not the Shah's army hundreds of thousands strong, the American weapons and the billions of petro-dollars in the banks of Teheran. With its struggle, with the decisive leading role which it played in the democratic revolution, it showed that the only social force to which the future belongs is the working class.

The events in Iran also confirmed another important thesis of Marxism-Leninism that the revolution cannot be carried out without violence and cannot be won without bloodshed. The regime of the Shah resisted to its last cartridge, the American imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists, the big international monopoly bourgeoisie, the kings and shahs from all over the place supported it up to the last second. If the Iranian people had listened to the sermons about the "peaceful road" trumpeted by the Khrushchovite revisionists, about the structural reforms of the ''Eurocommunists", the Chinese theory of "three worlds" etc., the clique of the Shah and the imperialists would have been ruling untroubled just as they are still ruling in many countries of the world. But the people of Iran were not fooled by illusions, were not afraid to rise in revolution, to shed their blood and make every kind of sacrifice to win their freedom and independence, to throw off the heavy yoke they were bearing on their backs. Here lies the great importance which the Iranian revolution has today for all the other peoples who are languishing under the double oppression of the domination of foreigners and reactionary local cliques. The revolution in Iran is a concrete illustration and confirmation of the correctness of the theses which Comrade Enver Hoxha defends in his book Imperialism and the Revolution, that in the present conditions, freedom and independence from imperialist domination cannot be won, neo-colonialism cannot be driven out and complete national sovereignty cannot be established if the internal cliques, too, linked with or sold out to the foreigners, are not fought.

The Iranian people rose in insurrection, ready to lay down their lives to escape from the savage oppression and exploitation and for more freedom and democracy. How far they will advance in this direction, how radical the reforms will be, depends on the genuine revolutionary forces, on how capable these forces will be of keeping the spirit of the revolution ablaze and raising it from a lower stage to a higher stage.

Lenin has stressed that the revolution is a serious matter which must not be trifled with, that if it is started it must be carried through to the end. The revolution in Iran is still developing and it cannot be said that it has achieved all the objectives which are facing it. The fact is that the forces of internal reaction and the imperialist forces are trying to stage a counter-revolution, either by direct violence from within, by external military intervention or by the peaceful degeneration of the revolution and its gradual transformation into its opposite. Therefore, to carry the revolution through to the end means for the people of Iran that they must raise their vigilance to the maximum and must not allow themselves to fall under bondage to foreign imperialists again, either to the Americans, the Soviets or others, because by means of maneuvers and intrigues, compromises, corruption and so on, they will strive to regain their old concessions and positions, of course in new forms.

Now, following the destruction of the administration of the Shah, new organs of power will be created in Iran. The course on which this process will develop has great importance. It may be progressive, but it may also be regressive. Both possibilities exist. In order to take progressive positions, the people of Iran will have to destroy all the structures and superstructures of the feudal monarchy of the Shah and replace them with a new structure and superstructure, appropriate to the country and not borrowed from the so-called bourgeois democracy which in essence is anti-popular. They will have to make great efforts to prevent the feudals and bourgeoisie from infiltrating all these institutions, but must take them over themselves and ensure that their most trustworthy representatives will carry out the great social and economic reforms.

Of course the transition from one stage of the revolution to the other, carrying it through to the end, is no easy task. But the progressive forces must gain ground step by step, must take sound democratic and progressive positions against those elements that will put up resistance and which are remnants of the backward feudalism of the past.

The working class, the poor peasantry, the rank and file soldiers will have to steel their Marxist-Leninist party, the party of workers, peasants and soldiers. They must take full advantage of the objective and subjective situations created in the country. Thus they will fight ever better against the pseudo-communists sold out to the Soviets, to the Eurocommunists, to the Maoists as well as the provocateur "communist parties" which the agencies of American and British imperialism create.

Today, more than ever before, the Marxist-Leninist communists, the genuine revolutionaries must be in the forefront of the struggle against reaction, against the intrigues and interference of American imperialism, Soviet social-imperialism and so on.

At these very important moments through which the revolution is passing, they must not be sectarian, nor opportunist. In no instance must they play the game of those who might deceive the people with a thousand tricks, or serve the foreign superpowers under whatever disguise they adopt.

Undoubtedly, the working class of Iran, which has shown itself to be so heroic, courageous and mature at this stage of the revolution, will know how to form sound alliances with progressive democratic, revolutionary and anti-imperialist elements and forces, regardless of whether they may be religious, but have not failed to fight with determination against the monarchy and the Shah.

Among the radical reforms which the Iranian people now require are those in connection with the army, with its social composition, structure and purpose. The army in Iran has been the main support of the monarchist regime, maintained to suppress the people and for the security of the despotic regime of the Shah. However, the events of recent months showed that this army, armed to the teeth and trained by the Americans, melted away like the snow in the sunshine. In the persistence of the people in struggling to win their rights and to overthrow the monarchy it was seen that the main force of the Pahlavi empire and American imperialism in Iran was only the top military caste. But it turned out that the military caste, fattened on American dollars, was unable to preserve the unity of the army, because the sons of the people did not follow it.

The main strength of any army is the sons o f the people. Therefore in Iran, too, the new army must be a democratic, people's army. The people cannot and must not be disarmed because they have shed their blood and laid down their lives for these weapons. They must not be disarmed without being certain that the army is a people's army and that men of the people command it. This is an experience drawn from history which has been confirmed and applied also by our people's revolution. The army must have progressive people at the head of it, who will guarantee that the reactionary military caste Will not be able to lead the sons of the people to kill the people.

Such a situation has been seen in many revolutions, indeed since the bourgeois-democratic revolution in France last century, when the sans-culotte produced outstanding commanders from their ranks and drove the army of kings, the aristocracy and French feudalism before them.

This is characteristic even for the present times when arms have become the terror of the world. But it depends who is wielding these arms and against whom they are aimed. When the people rise in revolution they are able to win over their own sons and to convince them to turn their weapons against those who force them to kill their fathers, mothers and sisters. In this direction the example of Iran is extremely significant.

The people of Iran have many means in their hands to defend the victories of the revolution and to carry them forward. Above all they have the oil which continues to shake the capitalist world. The politicians and publicists of the West make the question of Iranian oil more dangerous than the war in Viet Nam, Korea, etc. They are very worried about the fact that now possibilities are being created for Iran to use the oil to its own advantage and no longer permit others to get it for a song. It is to be expected that the imperialists and capitalists will play all their cards in order to re-establish the former situation in various ways and forms. But the Iranian people have all the possibilities to resist the interference, intrigues and maneuvers of imperialists, social- imperialists and anybody else. They will be able to resist them successfully if they become completely conscious of the need to keep a firm grip on the weapon of oil and are determined to defend it to the end, if they are not afraid of the Americans, Soviets, or other coalitions. Always bearing in mind the interests of their own homeland as well as the interests of other peoples of the world who are fighting for freedom, they will know how to take advantage of circumstances such as the present ones and those which will be created, wisely. A country in revolution, which has such a weapon in its hands as oil, which has such a valiant people that overthrows an old and rotten world to build a new world, is able to resist all enemies.

The struggle of the people of Iran which overthrew the despotic rule of the Shah, which dealt a heavy blow to American imperialism and the whole capitalist world also assists the liberation struggle of all peoples, the cause of democracy and progress throughout the world. Because of this, we Albanians have an exceptionally great respect for the Iranian people and bow in memory of those who fought heroically in the streets of Iran and gave their lives for the triumph of the revolution. We wish that they realize all their desires and aspirations and live free, independent and sovereign in their own homeland. End.

[Back to Top]

Statement of the Workers' and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran

The rotten regime of the monster Pahlavi kept the oppressed peoples of Iran in slavery for more than half a century, and made our country into a ruins -- a prison in ruins. During this historical period, the peoples of Iran frequently had aggression committed against them by the European and American imperialists. And the slavery of our peoples went so far that the sons of our people were turned into soldiers of the imperialist army to safeguard the interests of the imperialists in the region.

During this period, the imperialists thought that the Iran of Mohamed Reza Shah was one of their most solid bastions in the world, and they considered the Shah, known as a monster, as one of their most respected hirelings. They maintained him as emperor and gave him an army with millions of dollars in armaments to make it the fourth-ranking army in the world.

As could be expected, this army attacked different peoples at various times, to defend the imperialists. But the experience of the popular struggles has shown that no matter how strong an army may be, once a people make up their minds to defend or win their liberty, and are willing to make sacrifices, they can vanquish this army!

The peoples of Iran, like all the peoples of the world, while they were kept under oppression for long years and went from one kind of slavery to another, never lost their determination; on the contrary, they courageously attacked the imperialist enemy, making it retreat on several occasions in the course of the last hundred years. The anti-imperialist struggles of the peoples of Iran, including the Constitutional Revolution which removed Shah Mohamed Ali, then the movement for the nationalization of oil, which forced the traitor Mohamed Reza to flee Iran, constitute a long tradition.

In the course of these heroic struggles, the peoples of Iran, including the glorious proletariat, have in each period acted in an organized manner in the struggle to win democratic rights -- their democratic rights.

In recent years we have clearly seen how, despite all the regime's speeches on its stability and greatness, despite the oppression, the workers throughout the country fought against the Shah.

We could see the power of the Iranian proletariat when the strikes of the industrial workers began, and that in spite of the terror and the savage repression, they continued-- as in the case of the oil workers -- until these popular struggles reached their highest development, the Shah was forced to flee for the second time, and the Pahlavi regime's puppet army, with its entire war machine, crumbled like a giant with feet of clay.

This defeat of the Shah's army was so unexpected that all the calculations of the U.S. and Soviet imperialists proved false. And once more, our people defeated imperialism. The victory of the enormous popular movement brought with it a revolution which is a great lesson for the proletariat and the peoples of Iran.

In this revolution, the Iranian proletariat fought alongside the bourgeoisie against imperialism, and in this struggle, as a result of its political and organizational weakness caused by the absence of a strong party to lead it, the proletariat was not able to assume the leadership of the revolution; this is why this leadership fell into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which does not prevent this bourgeois democratic revolution from being an integral part of the proletarian revolution.

But the lesson that the working class and all the workers of Iran have drawn from this struggle has been to grasp the enormous damage caused to the workers' movement by the Khrushchovite and Maoist revisionists over the last twenty years, to grasp what great service these revisionists gave to the bourgeoisie on the international scale. The Iranian workers and other working people have understood the enormity of this betrayal which for long years has deprived the working class of its political party. And it was only at the beginning of this great popular ferment in Iran, one and a half years ago, that the Party of the working class was reconstructed in Iran, under the name of the Workers' and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran (WPCPI).

And it is precisely as a result of the tremendous extent of this movement, and of its intensity, that the still-young Party, though it was able to participate in a consistent fashion in this struggle and assume the leadership in certain areas, was not able to do so in a general manner.

In the struggles and clashes with an army equipped with rifles and sub-machine guns, the communists fought with molotov cocktails, which they used even to attack the Tehran military barracks. The heroic comrades of the Party have fought right in front of the military barracks, have not hesitated at any sacrifice and have taken a great quantity of arms from the enemy -- rifles, sub-machine guns and even armored cars. Already, several months before the Tehran insurrection, the Party called upon the people to use arms, and showed through leaflets how to construct and use molotov cocktails.

* * * *

Today, what is capable of defending the gains of the revolution and preserving them from the attacks of internal and external reaction is the ever-deepening ties of the Party with the working class, to organize it still further and raise its level of consciousness, and it is in this manner that the revolution will continue and will take on a proletarian character.

At the present time, at the moment when the bourgeois democratic revolution has been achieved in our country, has dealt very hard blows at the old regime symbolized by the monarchy, it is necessary to redouble vigilance in the future and prevent the agents of international reaction, who maintain their pillars in Iran (of which the army is still a strong base), from attacking the gains of the revolution. Experience has shown that where imperialism suffers defeats and is forced to retreat, it prepares to counterattack with the reactionary armies, like the Iranian army, which have not been entirely destroyed, and to put an end to the gains of the revolution.

This is why it is necessary to protect the gains of the revolution, to develop them and to give them a more and more proletarian character. We should not lay down our arms, we must keep them in our hands and watch for the maneuvers of reaction in Iran and, above all, keep an eye on the reaction, of which the army is the best pillar. As long as the reactionary army of the Shah remains in place, and with its present content, the danger of a counterrevolution exists. This is why the slogan of our people at the present time is: "dissolution of the Shah's army", and this slogan must be realized in order to establish a People's Army. All the chiefs of the army, the generals and colonels, must be judged, and the majority of them delivered to a tribunal of the people and shot. Our Party will defend the gains of this great revolution of the workers of Iran with all its strength, and will struggle to carry them through to the end and develop them in a consistent manner.




Tehran, February 14, 1979 End.

[Back to Top]


In February the glorious revolutionary struggle of the Iranian people achieved an historic victory with the overthrow of the fascist regime of the Shah which had U.S. imperialism as its main backer. The Iranian people first forced the Shah to flee the country in January in order to escape the wrath of the masses. The subsequent overthrow of the Shah-appointed Bakhtiar government on February 11, 1979 and the withdrawal of the government's armed forces from the bloodstained streets of Tehran is the culmination of the over one-year long national uprising of the Iranian people and is a triumph of worldwide historic significance. At the cost of 55,000 lives the heroic Iranian people have greatly advanced their anti-imperialist democratic revolution and have shaken the entire capitalist-imperialist world. The Workers' Advocate warmly hails and sends its revolutionary congratulations to the Iranian workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, women and other patriotic people for the tremendous victory they have achieved.

The revolution in Iran is a people's democratic revolution aimed at overthrowing the reactionary regime of the Shah and all its corrupt institutions, ousting all the imperialist powers from the country and winning independence and democracy for the oppressed and toiling Iranian masses. The main force of the democratic revolution has been and continues to be the masses of Iranian workers and peasants, who, together with the progressive intellectuals and genuine Iranian patriots have fought to end the old feudal-bourgeois social order and to replace it with a new one. They have fought to smash medieval barbarism and the plunder by foreign imperialism, especially U.S. domination, and to establish freedom, democracy, independence and social progress. In the forefront of the Iranian people's struggle stands the Iranian proletariat, who fought heroically and laid down thousands of lives to overthrow the Shah. This is exemplified by the oil workers, whose protracted strike paralyzed the Shah's regime and contributed greatly to its surrender.

In the days just preceding February 11, the Iranian workers and peasants in their tens of thousands took up arms against the fascist Iranian army, which had been savagely massacring the previously unarmed masses in their popular demonstrations, strikes and rallies for many months. When the Iranian people rose up in armed insurrection, the Shah's U.S. - trained and equipped army could not withstand their blows. The Shah's army, the main pillar of the monarchy and U.S. imperialist domination of Iran, was disunited because only the sold-out and traitorous military caste wanted to slaughter the Iranian masses, but the ordinary soldiers did not. The Iranian proletariat courageously withstood the vicious onslaughts of the fascist army and demonstrated very clearly that the proletariat is the real force in Iran, and also once again demonstrated that the working class is the motive force in modern society, to which the entire future belongs.

The revolution in Iran is still developing and all of the objectives for which the masses have shed so much blood have not yet been completely achieved. The recent events in Iran have delivered a big defeat to U.S. imperialism, which installed the Shah to power 25 years ago in a coup d'etat and has controlled this medieval barbaric regime since that time. These events have also been a big blow to world capitalism which had profited tremendously from the plunder of Iranian oil and the inhuman exploitation of the people. The imperialist forces and the domestic reactionaries sold-out to them are infuriated at their defeat and will try with all of the means at their disposal to make a comeback.. To carry the revolution through to the end, the Iranian people must be highly vigilant against foreign military intervention, internal fascist counter-revolution and against attempts to lull the revolution into a complacent sleep so that its gains can be gradually reversed.

The Shah's army has not been totally destroyed, and history shows that reactionary armies such as this are often used to launch a counter-attack against the victorious masses. Thus one of the key objectives of the revolution yet to be accomplished is the complete destruction of the old army and the construction of a people's army.

A recent statement of the Workers' and Peasants' Communist Party of Iran points out: "In this revolution, the Iranian proletariat fought alongside the bourgeoisie against imperialism, and in this struggle, as a result of its political and organizational weakness caused by the absence of a strong party to lead it, the proletariat was not able to assume the leadership of the revolution; this is why this leadership fell into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which does not prevent this bourgeois democratic revolution from being an integral part of the proletarian revolution."

Since the defeat of the Shah-Bakhtiar regime, the revolutionary movement has advanced after several important anti-imperialist and democratic measures have been taken. This includes the execution of a number of top army generals and the head of SAVAK, the confiscation of the Shah's property, the closing of U.S. military bases, the presentation of the former embassy of the Israeli Zionist criminals to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as steps toward obstructing the plunder of Iranian oil by foreign imperialist oil monopolies.

These advances of the Iranian people have infuriated the U.S. imperialists especially, who have stated through their mouthpiece Defense Secretary Harold Brown that in "protection of the oil flow from the Middle East...we'll take any action, including the use of military force. " This clearly shows that despite Carter's honeyed words about democracy, "human rights", and non-interference in the affairs of the Iranian people, the U.S. imperialists are not about to become reasonable and stop their aggression against, and attempts to plunder and dominate the peoples of Iran and elsewhere.

The struggle against the Shah's despotic regime and medievalism and against U.S. imperialist domination is not over. With the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution, new organs of power will be created. The revolutionary people of Iran must wage a difficult struggle for all of the radical, democratic reforms for which they fought and against all of the intrigues and conspiracies of the internal reactionary forces and the foreign imperialists who are plotting their counter-attacks in an attempt to regain their lost positions.

It is crystal clear that only with the leadership of the proletariat can this revolution be advanced to the next stage and be carried through to the end. The proletariat, which constitutes the leading and decisive force for the transformation of society in today's world, must lead the patriotic masses to be extremely vigilant against any backsliding and to resist all reactionary measures taken against the interests of the people. The importance of this can be seen by the fact that the people have been called upon to turn in the arms they captured at the cost of so much bloodshed and sacrifice. This is a retrogressive demand which would endanger the revolution and leave the masses disarmed in the face of a counter-revolutionary offensive by the domestic reactionaries or from foreign imperialist aggression. But it is a testimony to the maturity of the revolutionary masses that only 8,000 out of approximately 80,000 guns were returned. In addition, the masses of women, for instance, did not fight so heroically in order to preserve the veil and the domestic enslavement of women, but for full social equality. And they have staunchly resisted the retrogressive efforts to make them wear the veil and to assume the oppressed, passive role that the veil symbolizes. For the Iranian masses to realize their objectives and advance toward complete national and social liberation they must fight any resistance to the implementation of the democratic reforms for which they have fought.

The U.S. monopoly capitalist class daily bombards the American people with the lie that the revolution in Iran was of an Islamic religious character, that it was directed against the alleged "modernization" of Iran by the Shah, that the Iranian people are religious fanatics who desire a backward feudal society as opposed to social progress. It is true that the Shiite Moslem sect influenced the events in Iran, and it in fact played a positive role in the smashing of the 2500-year old medieval monarchy in which the recent Shah decked himself out as the disciple of God. But it was not religious ideals which fueled the fires in the hearts of the Iranian patriots and inspired them to make such tremendous sacrifices for the revolution. No, the Iranian people were inspired with the ideals of overthrowing the monarchy and to establish a democratic republic, for the nationalization of the oil so that it can benefit the national economy not the imperialist marauders, for an end to imperialist domination and feudal corruption altogether. The masses fought behind political slogans for freedom of the press and assembly, and for social equality and justice. The "modernization" of the Shah was simply the development of a communication-transportation-industrial infrastructure that facilitated the plunder of Iranian oil and other resources, and this type of "modernization" the Iranian people are determined to halt.

The imperialist propaganda that the Iranian revolution is characterized by religious fanaticism is quite consciously promoted to prevent the people of the world from becoming inspired by the courageous struggle of the Iranian people, to prevent this revolution from becoming an example to be emulated by all of the exploited and oppressed. The U.S. imperialists, the Soviet social-imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists and others are panic-stricken over the events in Iran, because it caught them by surprise and they are fearful of where revolution will erupt into flames next. Carter was only a short time ago fond of referring to the Shah as an iron bastion of "stability" for U.S. imperialist plunder and interference in the Middle East. But this "bastion" of the Shah's regime was blown away like so much sawdust in the wind by the insurrection of the aroused and dauntless Iranian people. The objective factors for revolution have matured or are maturing all over the world and the example of the Iranian revolution is inspiring the peoples everywhere to launch revolutionary struggles against the exploiters and reactionaries.

The Marxist-Leninists in the U.S. are confident that the Iranian people will resolutely persist in revolutionary struggle on the road to complete national and social liberation. The American working class and people firmly support the Iranian people and deeply respect them for the blood they have shed and the lives they have lost in fighting such a monstrous enemy as the fascist Shah backed by U.S. imperialism. The Iranian democratic revolution has inflicted a big defeat on the world capitalist system, U.S. imperialism in particular, and this is of tremendous assistance to the struggle of the American working class which everyday increases its resistance to these same U.S. monopoly capitalists who are oppressing and exploiting them to an intolerable degree. The Iranian revolution has, and will continue to inspire the revolutionary people of the U.S. to intensify their struggle to destroy U.S. imperialism once and for all. End.

[Photo: Armed Iranian masses stand guard outside parliament building in Tehran.]

[Back to Top]

U.S. Authorities Launch Savage Attacks Against Iranian Students

The U.S. monopoly capitalist state has launched a series of despicable fascist attacks against Iranian students in the U.S. There have been numerous arrests and large-scale violent attacks against Iranian students in Los Angeles, Chicago, Oklahoma City, Jersey City and many other places. Now the authorities in the U.S., having failed to silence or to intimidate the Iranian students, have, in a rabid fashion, called for the deportation of the progressive Iranian students and have launched a nation-wide hysteria campaign through the bourgeois media.

U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell has stated that he's "fed up with the violent behavior of Iranians" and has vowed to "shake up the immigration department". The Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser, who are also behind these attacks have said that the immigration service "should be checked into". Bell has vowed to personally supervise efforts to "streamline" the Immigration and Naturalization Service and to "plug legal loopholes that make it difficult to catch and deport illegal aliens". U.S. imperialism has openly declared that it will further fascize its state apparatus to ruthlessly and violently attack the Iranian students. This talk of "plugging legal loopholes" means that U.S. imperialism is going to try to deport foreign students and other immigrants on even flimsier pretenses than before and with the most fascist and barbaric means, with even less of a facade of legality and "due process" than is afforded the immigrants now being persecuted by the U.S. state. In their campaign to make the Immigration and Naturalization Service a more effective means of oppression, the administration officials have stated that the first step will be to determine how many Iranian students are in the country. Thus they plan to step up their fascist surveillance of the foreign students as well.

Along with its calls for deportations the government and bourgeois news media are conducting a nation-wide hysteria campaign to turn public opinion against the Iranian students. Typical of this campaign is the hysterical ravings of a two-bit reactionary columnist for the Chicago Tribune, Bob Wiedrich. This fascist propagandist also called for the deportation of Iranian students and slandered them as "bums", "big mouths", "the intellectual, philosophical and political prostitutes of the decade", "ungrateful ruffians ... wearing masks to disguise their cowardice", etc. Wiedrich whines that the Iranian students "took unfair advantage of the protection of American constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly". The utter fascist hypocrisy of Wiedrich, of U.S. imperialism, is to clamour about "constitutional guarantee of free speech and assembly" and then call for the deportation of Iranian students for their political activity. Of course if the Iranians had been "fair" and had supported the medieval fascist Shah and his master, U.S. imperialism, then Wiedrich, Bell, Vance and Brzezinski could sleep a little easier and might allow them to stay.

Wiedrich reveals what is actually behind the hysteria campaign when he states that the Iranian students are "soiling the intellectual freedom of our college campuses with their duplicitous revolutionary rhetoric", and asks "how much longer will it be before this intellectually immature bunch starts running through the streets yelling 'Kill President so-and-so' and people get caught up in the rebellious rhetoric of clowns who aren't even American citizens..." Wiedrich and the U.S. monopoly capitalist class are fearful of the revolutionary spirit of the Iranian students, their unity with the American people and their contributions to the revolutionary movement in the U.S.

The state attacks against Iranian students are part of the attacks against all foreign students and immigrants in the U.S. Foreign students and immigrants are persecuted because they have aspirations for national and social liberation and harbor great hatred for imperialism and reaction and many contribute to the revolutionary movement in the U.S. as well as contributing to the revolutionary struggles in their homelands. The dastardly persecution of the Iranian students in particular comes at a time when the great revolutionary upheaval in Iran has struck telling blows at U.S. imperialism and has thrown the U.S. authorities into panic. U.S. imperialism is enraged by the Iranian students' support for the Iranian revolution and is fearful of their determined effort to inform the American people of the justness of the Iranian people's struggle, of their exposure of the naked plunder of Iran by U.S. imperialism and its savage suppression of the Iranian people through its agents, the bloodstained Shah and his supporters.

The monopoly capitalist police have tried to silence the Iranian students with arrests and violent attacks but the Iranians are not intimidated and will not be silenced. The U.S. bourgeoisie, infuriated by this stand and completely unable to silence or to cower the Iranian students now frenziedly threatens to deport them. This shows the utter hostility of U.S. imperialism towards the Iranian people and its hatred and fear of the Iranian people's revolution. This dastardly attack also shows the impotence of U.S. imperialism in failing to suppress the Iranian people's movement even in the homeland of U.S. imperialism. The thin veil of "democracy" in the U.S. is shown to be a complete fraud by the American authorities' persecution of Iranian students and by the hysterical ravings of Attorney General Bell and other fascist mouthpieces like Wiedrich, just as Carter's "human rights" fraud was exposed by the massacres in the streets of Iran conducted by U.S. imperialism and its agents.

The Iranian students' struggles are just and are worthy of the support of all progressive people. The Iranian students have courageously fought the attacks of the U.S. state and through their inspiring anti-imperialist, anti-feudal stands have contributed to the revolutionary movement in the U.S. The American working class and people are fighting the same enemies as the Iranian people, U.S. imperialism,and it is the internationalist duty of all revolutionaries in the U.S. to extend their wholehearted support to the Iranian students. End.

[Back to Top]


The Work of J.V. Stalin Is Immortal

On the occasion of the 26th anniversary of the death of J.V. Stalin

(The following article is reprinted from Albanian Telegraphic Agency, March 4, 1979.)

Today the Albanian newspapers publish articles on the occasion of the 26th anniversary of the death of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

The article of the Albanian newspaper, Zeri i Popullit, organ of the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania, which carries the title, "The Work of J.V. Stalin is Immortal", says:

This year completes 100 years from the time when J.V. Stalin was born and 26 years since the day when the heart of the great revolutionary, Marxist- Leninist thinker, the loyal pupil, collaborator and dauntless continuer of the ideas and work of Lenin, ceased to beat. The work of Stalin is immortal. It will live through the centuries because it is linked with and has become an integral part of the ideology of the proletariat, Marxism-Leninism, with the triumph of the October Revolution, inspired and led by Lenin, with the establishment and consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, with the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, which was carried out on the basis of Lenin's teachings and under the leadership of Stalin and with the powerful growth of the revolutionary movement of the world proletariat and the international communist movement. Stalin, Comrade Enver Hoxha has stressed, "as a person and as a leader of the Bolshevik Communist Party, is at the same time the most outstanding leader of international communism after the death of Lenin who has exerted an influence in a very positive way and with great authority on the consolidation and the development of the triumphs of communism throughout the world".

Stalin dedicated the whole of his life and all his mental and physical energies to the cause of the proletariat, the revolution and socialism. With his revolutionary struggle and activity, Stalin very quickly became one of the recognized figures of the Russian proletarian movement, one of Lenin's closest collaborators who made a great contribution to the organization and the triumph of the October Revolution. He fought shoulder to shoulder with Lenin for the founding and construction of the first socialist state in the world, for its defense from the counter-revolution and foreign intervention.

After the death of Lenin, Stalin defended, developed and carried forward his ideas and work. At the head of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet state, Stalin organized and led the struggle to put into practice the Leninist plan of genius for the construction of socialism. Under the leadership of Stalin, and through a fierce class struggle against external and internal enemies, against Trotskyite, Bukharinite, Zinovievite and other renegades, the socialist industrialization of the country was carried out rapidly on the basis of self-reliance, with the internal resources, the collectivization of agriculture, one of the most difficult and complicated tasks was carried out successfully as a result of which the socialist relations in production were extended to the countryside and profound revolutionary transformations were carried out in the fields of culture and education.

The fascist aggression of hitlerite Germany against the Soviet Union interrupted the construction of socialism. At the head of the defense of the country and the Soviet army, Stalin was the strategist who forged the victory of the Soviet Union and the total defeat of the fascist aggressors. The war and the victory of the Soviet Union had vital importance for the liberation of the peoples from the fascist heel. The prestige of the Soviet Union was raised to unprecedented heights, while the name of Stalin became the symbol of the resistance, the freedom and independence of the peoples.

The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership scored great victories after the Great Patriotic War too. Within a short time, the Soviet people healed the grave wounds of the war, restored the economy and created the necessary material and technical base for a new vigorous development of the socialist construction. This was a fresh proof which testified to the great vitality of the socialist order.

Stalin continued and further developed the brilliant Leninist tradition of the consistent implementation and strengthening of proletarian internationalism. He worked and struggled without sparing himself, both in the time of the Comintern and later for the development and strengthening of the world workers' and communist movement and the liberation movement of the oppressed peoples dependent on imperialism. He was the first who put his finger on the treachery of the Yugoslav revisionists, this first variant of revisionism in power which had undertaken the role of the trojan horse, of the splitting of the international communist movement and sabotaging of the people's liberation movement. Proceeding from the essential need to raise the collaboration of the communist and workers' parties to a new higher level and to fight and expose the enemies of the revolution and Marxism-Leninism, Stalin became the initiator and inspirer of the creation of the Information Bureau, which during its existence, played an important role both in the strengthening of contacts and in exchange of revolutionary experience between communist parties and in stigmatizing and exposing the treachery of the Yugoslav revisionists. Time has completely confirmed the accuracy and correctness of the ideas of Stalin and the decisions of the Information Bureau.

Stalin was not only a great revolutionary, a great leader of the Bolshevik Party, the Soviet state and the world proletarian and liberation movement. He was, at the same time, an outstanding Marxist- Leninist theoretician and thinker. The main merit of Stalin in this field is that he defended Leninism to the end with revolutionary ardor, with rare mastery and in a creative manner and developed it further. Stalin defended the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution from the attacks of Trotsky and other enemies. In his works he has disclosed the full majesty and inexhaustible wealth of the theoretical inheritance which Lenin left, hi combatting opportunists, revisionists and all other enemies, Stalin defended and creatively developed the Marxist-Leninist theory of the violent proletarian revolution as a universal law for the transition from capitalism to socialism, defended and enriched the Marxist-Leninist doctrine on the dictatorship of the proletariat as an irreplaceable weapon in the hands of the proletariat to smash and totally liquidate the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes, to defend the triumphs of the revolution and socialism from internal and external enemies, to build socialist and communist society, as a weapon which must be sharpened and tempered continuously for the whole period of the construction of socialism and the transition to communism. The leading role of the proletarian Marxist-Leninist party is always decisive in any country for the fate of the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. Stalin made a contribution also to the elaboration and development of other major questions of Marxist-Leninist science such as those of classes and the class struggle, of imperialism and the stand towards it, etc.

The ideas and teachings of Lenin and Stalin, all that great ceaseless revolutionary process which developed in the world under the triumphant banner of Marxism-Leninism as long as Stalin was alive, the brilliant victories of socialism in the Soviet Union and the progress of socialism in the other countries, the vigorous development of the revolution and the liberation struggle which was mounting ceaselessly and would have swept the capitalist world was attacked by the Khrushchovite revisionist renegades and their followers.

After the death of Stalin, the Khrushchovite revisionist traitor group which had worked under cover and lurked in the dark to stab the Party of Lenin and Stalin in the back, seized the opportunity, usurped power and took over the leadership of the Party and the Soviet state with anti-Marxist and anti-revolutionary methods through a putsch.

In order to smuggle in their anti-Marxist and counter-revolutionary course, the Khrushchovite revisionists launched a furious diabolical attack against Stalin on the basis of slanders, lies and the falsification of facts and the reality. They waged their attack against Stalin with the fabricated slogans and theses of the struggle against "Stalinist dogmatism", of the struggle against "the cult of the individual of Stalin and its consequences". By fighting furiously to denigrate, discredit and to dethrone Stalin, the Khrushchovite modern revisionists aimed to denigrate and dethrone Leninism; they had as their objective to deny and reject Marxism-Leninism and the dictatorship of the proletariat and to justify their revisionist course with all its consequences. The revisionist ideological platform which was presented by Khrushchov and approved at the notorious 20th Congress proved that their aim was to dethrone Leninism.

The Soviet revisionists needed the attack on Stalin which served their purposes also to accuse and slander the Party and its Marxist-Leninist line, to present the whole thirty year period of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, during which Stalin was at the head of the Party and of the Soviet state, in a distorted light. In fact the attacks against Stalin and his period served the Khrushchovite Soviet revisionists to attack and reject all the revolutionary experience of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin and all the revolutionary experience of the international workers' and communist movement.

Along with the Soviet revisionists, all the currents of present-day revisionism, the Yugoslav, Chinese and Eurocommunist revisionists and all the other enemies of the revolution and socialism hurled themselves into the attack against this revolutionary experience, against Marxism-Leninism and Stalin who embodied the consistent defense and application of this experience and Marxism-Leninism, with unprecedented fury, hatred and hostility. They accept any kind of "socialism" even "Yugoslav self-administrative socialism", even the "socialism with a human face", even "the developed socialism" of the Khrushchov-Brezhnev variety, but there is one kind of socialism they do not accept -- the true socialism, that which Lenin and Stalin created on the basis of Marxism, that which exists and is developing in Albania on the basis of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Time has fully confirmed all the predictions, analysis and Marxist-Leninist conclusions of our Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha about the great betrayal of the Soviet revisionists as well as for all the other currents of modern revisionism. Despite the negative results and harm it has done, the Khrushchovite revisionist betrayal and the spread of the revisionist tide to other countries, did not defeat Marxism-Leninism. Its transforming power is growing from day to day, while revisionism, with all its variants is in decline. "Khrushchov and the other petty theoreticians of the so-called 'creative Marxism' suffered disgraceful bankruptcy," declared Comrade Enver Hoxha at the 7th Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania. "The science of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin remains further implanted in the minds and hearts of the world proletariat, it is always the unerring compass, of the revolution and socialism, the victorious weapon in the class battles of the proletariat and the working masses."

As our Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have stressed, the question of the attitude to Stalin is a major question of principle, a line of demarcation which has divided and divides genuine Marxist-Leninists from revisionists and opportunists of all hues, divides the genuine revolutionaries from pseudo-revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries.

The struggle of the PLA to defend Stalin and his work, has had and has a profound revolutionary principled content. By defending Stalin the PLA defends Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary traditions of October, the experience of the first socialist state, founded by Lenin and led by Stalin, defends the universal experience of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, carried out on the basis of the teachings of Lenin and under the leadership of Stalin, experience which the Soviet revisionists trampled on and betrayed.

Our Party and people, together with the revolutionaries, the workers, and peoples of the whole world keep alive the brilliant memory of J.V. Stalin. End.


[Back to Top]



After the publication of Comrade Enver Hoxha's brilliant work, Imperialism and the Revolution, the "RCP" leadership has come out with the most savage anti-communist attacks against socialism in Albania. (See the article "Down with the 'RCP, USA's' Shameful Anti-Communist Attack on the Glorious Party of Labor of Albania" in the February 12th issue of The Workers' Advocate.) This attack on the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the solid fortress of world revolution and beacon of socialism, marks the complete bankruptcy of the "RCP" and of its chief revisionist "theoretical" hack, Bob Avakian. With these attacks on Albania, the "RCP" leadership has come out as a commando squad for "three worlds-ism".

Why is the "RCP" leadership in such a frenzy over Imperialism and the Revolution. It is because this book demolishes Chinese revisionism and exposes its roots in Mao Tsetung Thought, while the "RCP" is a fervent follower of Chinese revisionism. The "RCP" leadership is a diehard defender of the "three worlds" theory, that typical product and most disgusting example of Chinese revisionism, that theory that is universally condemned around the world as the concentrated expression of counter-revolutionary revisionism and open reaction. The "RCP" leadership knows that the spirited repudiation of the "three worlds" theory is key to the denunciation of Chinese revisionism, that once burning hatred is aroused against this theory, that then everyone will start looking into the questions of the origins of "three worlds-ism", into the question of the roots of the "three worlds" theory and into the history of the struggle in the U.S. between revolutionary Marxism- Leninism and neo-revisionism.

Because of the powerful polemics against the "three worlds" theory by the world's revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and because the consequences of the "three worlds" theory are being worked out in such an unmistakable fashion by the social-imperialist ruling clique in China, the "RCP" cannot defend the "three worlds" theory in a straightforward fashion. Therefore they twist and turn, caught in a false position. They try to deny the importance of fighting the "three worlds" theory and to shift this way and that. In the July 1977 issue of Revolution they concocted the view that as "opposed" to the Klonskyite open "three worlders", they regarded the "three worlds" theory not as the "whole!' strategy for world revolution, but only as "part" of the strategy or even just a "tactic". This was too pitiful to last. Therefore the "RCP" leadership promised right and left to come out against the "three worlds" theory and finally produced an article in the November 1978 Revolution entitled "'Three Worlds' Strategy: Apology for Capitulation". But, upon examination, this article has made no advance at all over the previous article. It still says that the "three worlds" scheme is not revisionist in itself, but only When taken as a "strategy". And it concocts the view of two different "three worlds" theories -- the good one before Mao Tsetung's death and the bad one afterwards.

In this article we analyze a few of the many opportunist positions taken by the "RCP" in its recent writings which allegedly "oppose" the theory of "three worlds". This analysis will show that the "RCP" is nothing but another "three worlder" sect.

In the first part of this article, two points were dealt with:

1) The "RCP" denies the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the division of the world into two camps and instead substitutes for this the division of the world into two big imperialist blocs. In this section we showed that the "RCP" claims to oppose the division of the world into three with a division into two. But the two parts "RCP" recognizes are the U.S. imperialist war bloc and the Soviet social-imperialist war bloc -- i.e. in short, the exact division made by the mast rabid Chinese revisionists and "three worlders" like Teng Hsiao-ping. It is this division that is the basis of the theory of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism". And thus it isn't too surprising to find that the "RCP" then turns around and says that the division into three according to the "three worlds" scheme isn't revisionist, in and of itself.

2) The "RCP" negates the existence of socialism in the world and the role of the only genuinely socialist country, Albania. The "RCP" ignores the existence of socialist Albania in its discussion of the world situation, and as well it ignores the entire world proletariat as a world force. Hence its division of the world into two is simply a division into rival imperialisms, not into the forces of world revolution versus the forces of counter-revolution and imperialism. Hence the "RCP" ignores the greatest achievement of the proletariat... socialism. And this ignoring of socialism is not "forgetfulness" but hostility, as shown by the "RCP's" anti-communist attacks on Albania.



The "RCP" regards the basic formulas of Chinese revisionism and "three worlds-ism", or a cleaned up version of them, as the only guide to the international situation. Therefore, for the "RCP'', to deny the "three worlds" theory means to deny the existence of any strategy at all for the world revolution and the international proletariat. In the July 1977 article the "RCP" twisted and turned and tried to clean up the "three worlds" theory by saying that is was OK so long as it was interpreted correctly and only taken as "part of", rather than the whole, line for the international situation or perhaps as a "tactic" rather than a "strategy". In their November 1978 article the "RCP" pretends to have gone further and the conclusion of the article states that "The 'three worlds' theory is a counter-revolutionary line of capitulation and betrayal.'' (p. 16, col. 3) But this is just sham. Actually there is no real advance from July 1977, only more huffing and puffing and hot air. For in the November 1978 article the "RCP" is very careful to only denounce the " 'three worlds' strategy", both in the title of the article and over and over again in the text, while stating, as we have quoted above, that there is nothing wrong in the formulas of the division of the world into three when taken as "a description, in and of itself." And the "RCP" cannot even denounce the "three worlds" theory as a "strategy" without choking and coughing painfully and immediately adding that there is no international strategy at all for the proletariat. That is, if the "three worlds" theory isn't the strategy, nothing is!

In the November 1978 article the "RCP" states:

".. .But the 'three worlds' strategy is being put forward as an overall global strategy... The first question that inevitably comes to mind is, a strategy for what? And once again the answer emerges -- for anything but advancing the revolution worldwide.

"Indeed, one is treading on thin ice as soon as a 'strategy' for the international proletariat is advanced. Historical experience has shown that such strategies, even where correct, have but limited and short-term usefulness. From a world-historic viewpoint one basic strategic alliance emerges in the epoch of imperialism -- the link between the struggle of the proletariat of the advanced countries for socialism and the liberation struggles of the oppressed peoples of the colonial countries as the two component parts of the world proletarian revolution." (p. 3, col. 2)

Here we see the "RCP" talking out of both sides of its mouth, denouncing "strategy" but upholding "strategic alliance", etc. But the central point in this proletariat is advanced." In short, if the "RCP" can't have the "three worlds" theory as an "overall global strategy", then there is no "strategy" whatsoever, and to hell with the basic principles of Marxism- Leninism! Following this central point, the "RCP" goes on with a sentence about "basic strategic alliance". The "RCP" wants to discredit Marxism- ) Leninism by denouncing "strategy", but to leave a loophole to bring back in the " 'united front against imperialism' strategy" as a "strategic alliance", a loophole which will be big enough to allow back in ail the basic theses of "three worlds-ism". After all, the "RCP's" own Party Program contains a section "The United Front Against Imperialism Is the Proletariat's Strategy for Revolution" and Avakian's speech "Revolutionary Work In A Non-Revolutionary Situation" contains a subhead entitled "Our Strategy -- United Front Against Imperialism". (See Revolution, June 1977, p. 25, col. 2) We shall return to the question of "RCP's" "basic strategic alliance" but for the time let us examine what it means to denounce the international proletariat having any strategy.

The "RCP" Negates Marxism-Leninism by Ridiculing Strategy

What does it mean to ridicule "strategy", to denounce it as of "limited" and only "short-term" value, "even where correct". It means to write off the revolution, to leave the revolution without any prospects at all, without a line of march, an activity to be pursued blindly, without science, without hope, without conviction. It means to write off the proletariat, to condemn it to give up its historical mission and its class independence and to instead trudge along hopelessly while regarding "the principal and determining factor" as which imperialist bloc to line up with.

In fact, to deny "strategy" is to deny Marxism- Leninism. The strategy and tactics of the international proletariat are firmly based on Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism teaches the proletariat the universal laws of revolution and shows the proletariat the inevitable course of world history. As well, Marxism-Leninism provides the only truly scientific stand, viewpoint and method with which to study the concrete features of any particular situation, the only way to allow the proletariat to find its bearings in the midst of complicated situations. The "RCP" is attacking Marxism-Leninism under the pretext of denouncing "strategy", shamelessly mocking the universal Marxist-Leninist laws and the Marxist world view as of little value "even where correct".

The "RCP" tries to hide its negation of the strategy of Marxism-Leninism by counterposing "international" strategy to domestic strategy. We will deal with this sophistry later in more detail in the section of this article entitled "The 'RCP' says that the 'three worlds' theory is not important because it is only the 'international' line of Chinese revisionism". For now, two points will suffice. First of all, by counter- posing international strategy to domestic strategy the "RCP" is aiming especially at negating the universal character of the Marxist-Leninist laws, laws that hold true all over the world. And secondly the "RCP" is guiltily hiding the fact that the theory of "three worlds" is not just a question on some high, ethereal international plane, but also a question of the strategy and tactics in each individual country. The issue is not "international" strategy versus domestic strategy-- but the revolutionary strategy of Marxism-Leninism versus the counter-revolutionary, social-chauvinist strategy of the "three worlds" theory.

Marxism-Leninism teaches the proletariat to follow a very definite strategy. For the proletariat can either have a conscious strategy or an unconscious one, can either have an independent, revolutionary strategy and tactics or bourgeois and revisionist strategy and tactics, but it cannot be without strategy altogether as the "RCP" implies. Thus a central point in the Marxist-Leninist strategy and tactics is that in all countries the proletariat seeks to organize itself as a class, to come out onto the historical process as an independent class force, and to establish its own political party, the communist party. Without a genuine Marxist-Leninist communist party, the proletariat cannot develop its own independent political action -- that is, politics truly independent of the bourgeoisie and the opportunist lackeys of the bourgeoisie. Yet, strangely enough for a group that claims to be a "party", the "RCP" has forgotten this basic principle of proletarian strategy. This is because the "RCP" opposes the Marxist-Leninist strategy with the basic neo-revisionist and Chinese revisionist theses that form the basis of "three worlds-ism". First the "RCP" (then called the Bay Area Revolutionary Union and later the Revolutionary Union) opposed the unity of the Marxist-Leninists into one proletarian party and instead advocated forming "pre-party collectives". This "pre-party collective" strategy scattered and factionalized the Marxist- Leninist movement and left it easy prey for infiltration by opportunist theories and dubious elements. Then the "RCP" concocted the theory that party- building was only important for a brief period of time prior to the founding congress. To this day they have never adhered to the basic Marxist-Leninist strategy on the constant building and strengthening of the party. According to them, the party, like strategy in general, is just some general dogma, of limited value "even where correct". They counterpose the mass movement to the party, and the "united front" strategy to the party. The "united front" was allegedly concrete analysis of concrete conditions, while the "party" was allegedly abstract dogma. This example shows that the "RCP" denies strategy as a cover for negating Marxism-Leninism and replacing it with the neo-revisionist and Chinese revisionist strategy, the "three worlder" strategy.

The "RCP" Negates Marxist-Leninist Strategy in Order to Uphold the Strategy of "Three Worlds-ism"

This brings us back to the "RCP's" "basic strategic alliance". It is typical of the celebrated theoretical genius and political consistency of Mr. Avakian and company that the "RCP" denounces "strategy" but upholds a "basic strategic alliance". The "RCP" has to continually contradict itself because it is in a false position -- it is trying to present itself as "against" the "three worlds" theory without giving up any of the basic ideological theses of "three worlds-ism". What is behind the "RCP's" "basic strategic alliance"?

First of all, the "RCP" would have us believe that it simply wishes to uphold the alliance between the proletarian revolutionary movement and the national liberation movement as "the two component parts of the world proletarian revolution". Here we won't bother to discuss "RCP's" particular formulation of this question, but we will pass on immediately to the key issue. To uphold the world proletarian socialist revolution -- the forces of which include the world proletariat, the socialist country Albania, and the national liberation movement -- means to uphold the division of the world into two forces, the forces of revolution and the forces of counter-revolution. But the "RCP" does not regard this as the correct division of the world. In this article the "RCP" stresses that the world is divided into two, but according to them these two are the U.S. imperialist war bloc and the Soviet social-imperialist war bloc. In short, the "RCP" divides the world into two rival imperialist blocs -- while leaving the world revolution completely out of the picture -- exactly like Teng Hsiao-ping and company divide the world. Since the "RCP" denies the world proletarian revolution any role in international politics, then clearly it has raised the question of the component parts of the world proletarian revolution simply as a diversion, in order to throw sand in the reader's eyes, and with an ulterior motive.

The " 'United Front Against Imperialism' Strategy"

The ulterior motive is to promote the "'United Front Against Imperialism' strategy". Right from the start Mr. Avakian and company have used demagogy about the united front in order to fight the Marxist-Leninist teachings and to promote neo-revisionism, which in the main is the American expression of Chinese revisionism. The neo-revisionists hid behind the "united front against imperialism" in order to promote a number of basic opportunist theses, theses which in fact are basic premises of "three worlds-ism". These original theses of "three worlds-ism" included such things as the following:

a) The united front was counterposed to the party, as part of the general neo-revisionist counterposing of the mass movement to the party.

b) The irreconcilable struggle against revisionism, cultural nationalism and all opportunism was denounced as a disruption of the united front.

c) The revolutionary capacity of the proletariat and its ability to rally all the toiling and oppressed masses around itself and to merge all the currents of revolt into one great torrent of socialist revolution was negated. The masses and especially the proletariat are presented as "backward", and it was held that the "third world peoples in the U.S." are more revolutionary than the proletariat. The proletariat is alleged to be interested, at best, in reformism.

d) The proletarian socialist character of the revolution was negated. Under the pretext that "imperialism is monopoly capitalism", the socialist revolution inside a superpower is presented in national liberation colors. This is part of the skepticism towards the proletariat, which is pointed to in (c). It also reflects blatant reformism -- the attempt to separate the question of opposition to imperialism and imperialist aggression and of various "immediate" issues from the question of the "ultimate" socialist revolution.

Thus "the 'United front against imperialism' as the strategy of the American revolution" has always been a key component of "three worlds-ism". It has all the same basic ideological theses. It is no wonder that all our domestic American "three worlders" swear by this strategy. For years, arch-renegade Klonsky's chief complaint against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists has been that they negate his idea of "united front". For example, during the sharp debate in 1973 in the Marxist-Leninist movement over how to build the genuine communist party, The Call sputtered that "Most importantly, the present-day ultra-'leftists' oppose the strategy of the united front against imperialism." (The Call, "Building a New Communist Party in the United States", March-May 1973)

The Revolutionary Union (predecessor of the "RCP, USA") started out by upholding the "united front against imperialism" strategy and the notorious "five spearheads". In fact, the RU was the original theoretician of neo-revisionism and domestic "three worlds-ism". And today the "RCP" still upholds the " 'united front' strategy" and the basic theses of neo-revisionism, suitably modified and adapted over the years without altering its real essence. The "RCP" declares in favor of the " 'united front' strategy" in such basic documents as "Revolutionary Work in a Non-Revolutionary Situation" and the Party Program. The "RCP" is so anxious to preserve the " 'united front' strategy" from the fiasco of the "three worlds" theory that it resorts to a crude fraud. The "RCP" admits that a good deal of the demagogy of the "three worlds" theory revolves around the question of the "united front", but the "RCP" asks "United Front for What?" (subhead on p. 12, col. 3) The "RCP" answers, "for building a world-wide united front against hegemonism". (p. 13, col. 1, emphasis as in the original) The "RCP" stresses the word "hegemonism" as the point that allegedly distinguishes the "RCP's" "united front against imperialism" from the "three worlders' '' "united front against hegemonism". But this is nothing but a crude fraud and a slimy trick as in fact all the "three worlders" talk about the "united front against imperialism". Look in Klonsky's Political Report to the Founding Congress and you find a section on the "united front against imperialism and not at all on the "united front against hegemony". Klonsky is quite willing to talk about the "third world" allegedly fighting "resolute battles against imperialism, colonialism and superpower hegemonism" and not just against hegemonism alone. Why does the "RCP" resort to this crude fraud? The "three world- er" sophistry about "hegemonism" should be exposed, but such exposure has nothing in common with the "RCP's" shallow word-games. The issue is not whether you fight imperialism or hegemonism -- the revolution fights both imperialism and all its reactionary features including hegemonism. Nor is the issue the "united front" in itself either, for the Marxist-Leninists are in favor of the proletariat rallying its allies around itself, establishing correct united fronts, etc. The issue is the whole core of neo-revisionist and "three worlders" theses which have gone under the general heading of the neo-revisionist type of "united front against imperialism". The "RCP" wishes to preserve these theories and concocts the crude hoax that everything was fine until the "three worlders" replaced the word "imperialism" with the word "hegemonism".

In the course of the "RCP's" adventures with hegemonism, the "RCP" blurts out that the problem is that "The proponents of the 'three worlds' strategy never claimed it to be a strategy for revolution, but rather for building a world-wide united front against hegemonism". (p. 12, col. 3-p. 13, col. 1) Of course this is a straightforward lie, as both the Chinese revisionists and the domestic Klonskyite "three worlders" have claimed that the "three worlds" theory is "a great strategic concept for world revolution". But here the main issue isn't "RCP's" lie in itself, but the following fascinating contradiction:

a) The "RCP" in the first page of its article denounces the '"three worlds' strategy" for being an "overall global strategy" for revolution and goes to the extent of denying the existence of any useful strategy for the world proletariat.

b) Two pages later the "RCP" then turns around and denies that anyone ever claimed that the "three worlds" theory was "a strategy for revolution". What conclusion can one draw from such absurd contradictions ? There is one obvious conclusion: that Mr. Avakian and his cronies are a bunch of professional confusion-mongers. And there is also another conclusion: that Mr. Avakian and company have no serious opposition to the "three worlds" theory -- and simply want to tone it down a little and change this or that formulation in order to cover over the complete bankruptcy of Chinese revisionism and "three worlds-ism".


We have already seen, in the last section, how the "RCP" ridicules the world revolution by denouncing the very idea of a strategy for the international proletariat. The "RCP" goes further to negate the proletarian revolution through its incessant preachings about the "non-revolutionary situation" in the advanced capitalist countries. With this theory the "RCP" is preaching that the proletariat is allegedly backward and that the objective conditions for revolution do not exist. They are joining in the chorus of the "three worlders", a chorus which may sometimes pretend to support the national liberation movement or the anti-imperialist revolution, but which has totally written off the world proletariat, the socialist revolution, and the proletarian revolution in the "advanced" capitalist countries.

The denial of the revolution is at the center of social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism". Once the revolution is thrown out the window, what is left ? Only an "international situation" consisting solely of imperialist war blocs fighting for world domination, where the "principal and determining factor" is with which imperialist bloc someone aligns. And these arguments of the "RCP" are just a repetition of the basic ideas of the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists. Klonsky himself puts aside the revolution and then divides the world into two in the "RCP" manner, i.e. into U.S. imperialist lackeys and Soviet social-imperialist lackeys. In the words of Klonsky's Political Report to the Founding Congress of the CP(ML):

"A concrete study of concrete conditions shows that a new world war is inevitable. As long as the two superpowers continue to contend for world domination, one must either defeat the other or be defeated by the other. It does no good to talk in abstractions about peace being possible.... The rate of war preparations is so rapid now that there is no possibility of civil war and the victory of socialism heading off the war. Therefore, our task becomes one of transforming the inevitable superpower war into a revolutionary civil war." (p.44) In this quote the arch-renegade Klonsky denounces proletarian revolution and the mass revolutionary struggles against imperialist warmongering and aggression as "abstractions about peace being possible". Klonsky rules out the revolution in order to get down to the real business, the "practical politics": either the U.S. imperialists win or the Soviet social-imperialists win, so choose sides. Of course, all this is covered over with talk of revolutionary civil war in the future, after the imperialist war breaks out, after the Klonskyites have helped the U.S. imperialists build more B-l bombers and Trident submarines and preserve a quiet home front for the whole period prior to the war.

The "RCP" however indicates that it has an allegedly fundamental difference with the "three worlders". They state: "The 'three worlds' theory makes the assumption (and insistence!) in analyzing the 'second world' countries that a revolutionary situation does not exist nor can one conceivably arise." (p. 3, col. 2, emphasis and parenthetical remark as in the original) Here the "RCP" shows its utter skepticism about the proletarian revolution and its utter impotence in the face of the Klonskyites. Their only difference with the Klonskyites is that the "RCP" holds that one should not "insist" too hard on the negation of revolution and that it is "conceivable" that a proletarian revolution might take place. The "RCP" uses the parenthetical remark "(and insistence!)" and italicizes the words "nor can one conceivably arise", because that is their only difference with the "three worlds" theory, at most a difference of shade, over how much to insist on this or that point and over how active one's imagination is. The difference between Mr. Klonsky and Mr. Avakian is over whether one can "conceive" revolution -- if one tries hard enough, with one's eyes closed, in a dark room and a deep trance.

The "RCP" Puts Off the Revolution Until the Outbreak of World War

Furthermore, the,'.'RCP." "conceives" of this revolution mainly in regard to the threatened world war. Thus it turns out that even in "conceiving" the revolution the "RCP" is quite close to Mr. Klonsky, who also phrasemongers about revolutionary civil war in a world war. The "RCP" states: "The 'three worlds' strategy takes as its premise the non-revolutionary situation existing in the imperialist countries and the weakness of the (pseudo- and genuine) Marxist-Leninist forces. (The "RCP" agrees with this premise! -ed.) Lenin, however, stressed repeatedly, especially with regards to war, the possibility of a very rapid change in the mood of the masses into a revolutionary one. He pointed out the outbreak of world war can bring with it the embryo of a revolutionary situation." (p. 12, col. 2) Thus the "RCP" agrees with the "three worlds" theory on the "premise" of the non-revolutionary situation. And, just like Mr. Klonsky, the "RCP" identifies the advance of the revolution with "the outbreak of world war", only Mr. Avakian is somewhat more cautious than Mr. Klonsky and he only says that world war will bring the "embryo" of a revolutionary situation. The "RCP", never before known for modesty, generously attributes this idea to Lenin, rather than claiming it as another one of "RCP's" celebrated theoretical breakthroughs. But the "RCP" is being far too bashful, because this idea--that proletarian revolution is only possible during a world war -- has nothing to do with Leninism and everything to do with writing off the proletariat and with the feverish warmongering of the "three worlders". The "RCP" tries to bolster this "three worlder" thesis by immediately quoting a fragment from a sentence by Lenin. Apparently Lenin "stressed" the idea so much that "RCP" couldn't even find a complete sentence from Lenin with this idea. The fragment goes " socialist has ever guaranteed that this war (and not the next one), that today's revolutionary situation (and not tomorrow's) will produce a revolution. " (Lenin, "The Collapse of the Second International", Collected Works, v. 21, p. 159) But this fragment has nothing to do with the "RCP's" thesis -- it simply explains that not every revolutionary situation necessarily gives rise to a revolution and no socialist would be so foolish as to give a guarantee in advance. Lenin singles out the question of war because the article was written in 1915, in the middle of World War I and the fierce struggle against those social-chauvinists of the Second International who had taken the side of "their own" bourgeoisie in the inter-imperialist slaughter. In this important article, "The Collapse of the Second International", Lenin, as if slapping the "RCP" in the face in advance, lists examples of revolutionary situations having nothing to do with "the outbreak of world war", such as Germany in the 1860's and Russia in 1859-61, 1879-80 and 1905. None of these examples are connected with a general or all-European war. The 1905 Revolution in Russia was of course connected with the defeats of Tsarism in the Russo-Japanese War. But this was not a world war. On the contrary, the situation with regard to that war is far more reminiscent of the repeated defeats of U.S. imperialism in Indochina, which was one of the factors creating favorable conditions for the revolutionary upsurge in the 1960's, a revolutionary upsurge in which the mass movement against the war of aggression played a major role. It seems that the "RCP" reads Lenin a la Klonsky. All the "RCP" theoreticians learned from "The Collapse of the Second International" was that proletarian revolution requires world war -- an idea that isn't present in that work at all -- and they missed entirely the fact that the article was written to stress the absolute necessity of an irreconcilable struggle against and a total break with the social- chauvinists and opportunists. As opposed to the "RCP", Lenin did not consider the struggle against revisionism and opportunism as a mere side issue nor did he consider the opportunists "middle forces" to be united with.

Thus both the "RCP" and the open "three worlders" of the "CP(ML)" write off the proletarian revolution. They both attempt to cover up their denial of the revolution by phrasemongering about how the situation will change during a world war. The "CP(ML)" promises that it will then convert the imperialist war into a civil war, while the "RCP" says that it can "conceive" of the possibility of the "embryo" of a revolutionary situation arising. But Mr. Klonsky and Mr. Avakian are certainly mistaken if they think that serious revolutionaries will be so naive as to believe that those who scoff at the proletarian revolution before a war and follow the opportunist positions of the "three worlds" theory are likely to turn into ferocious revolutionaries and orthodox Marxist-Leninists during a war. Those who are in a fit of the blues over the "non-revolutionary situation" of today will not suddenly be invigorated by a war. On the contrary, all history goes to prove that if a world war breaks out, the "quiet revolutionaries" will throw up their hands in despair, complain of how strong the government is in times of war, whine in the face of the white terror of the bourgeoisie, shrink in horror at the executions for "high treason" -- and evaluate the situation as far, far worse than the presently existing one. Perhaps some clown will start pontificating on "revolutionary work in a counter-revolutionary situation". And that is only what the better section of the opportunists will do. The bulk of the social-chauvinists will step up their collaboration with the bourgeoisie and continue to cheer for the victory of U.S. imperialism. They will actively help the government hunt down "subversives". Marxism- Leninism teaches that war is a continuation of politics by other, i.e. violent, means. The Klonskyites who today support the B-l bomber, Trident submarines and civil defense programs, who today are volunteer advisors to the State Department and public relations men for the Pentagon, will continue their path of class treason in wartime too. And meanwhile those who today can't see the wave of revolt building up in the proletariat, who can't evoke a revolutionary mood from the masses, will be twice as blind and impotent in the wartime conditions of capitalist white terror.

The "RCP" Preaches that There is a "Non-Revolutionary Situation" in the U.S.

So far, on the question of the alleged "non-revolutionary situation", we have only quoted the "RCP's" article on the "second world". But in fact the "RCP" is well-known for its view that the situation in the U.S. too is "non-revolutionary". In the major article "Revolutionary Work in a Non-Revolutionary Situation", Mr. Avakian gives a whole barrage of complex arguments in order to blame everything on the allegedly unfavorable objective conditions. As a matter of fact, if the "RCP" really took seriously the study of Lenin on the objective conditions necessary for a successful revolution, then it would have learned something about the relationship between the deepening all-round crisis presently gripping the entire capitalist and revisionist world and the revolutionary ferment throughout the world. But all the "RCP's" allegedly "scientific" arguments are just window dressing. The point at stake is not a disagreement with the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists on the precise timing of the revolution, on whether the insurrection should be launched now or not, or on the exact speed of the development of the objective factors0 The issue is that the "RCP" is writing off the socialist revolution and laying the ideological basis for social- chauvinism. The "RCP's" real arguments for the "non-revolutionary situation" are the most commonplace, vulgar arguments of the neo-revisionists: namely, denouncing the masses as backward combined with just plain sneering at the revolution.

First of all, the "RCP" boils the whole question down to the alleged backwardness of the masses. In the November 1978 article, allegedly writing "against" the "three worlds" theory, the "RCP" reduces the question of the creation of the "embryo" of the revolutionary situation to "a very rapid change in the mood of the masses into a revolutionary one", (p. 12, col. 2) Thus at one stroke the "RCP" negates all the Marxist-Leninist teachings about the objective factors for revolution, factors independent of the will and mood not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes, and one-sidedly reduces everything to the mood of the masses. In so doing, the "RCP" reveals its own deep pessimism about the proletariat and the toiling masses. The "RCP" always uses this alleged backwardness of the proletariat as the excuse for the "RCP's" own opportunist politics. But in fact it is not even enough for the "RCP" that the masses be in a revolutionary mood. Unless the masses are absolutely clear about the revolutionary path and the Marxist-Leninist strategy, the "RCP" will still denounce them and deny the revolutionary nature of their struggle. Thus that bible of neo-revisionist whining and impotent intellectualism, namely the article "Revolutionary Work in a Non-Revolutionary Situation", states: "This is a difficult period -- for the masses and for the Party. It is not a period like the '60's and early '70's, a period of high tide of struggle, mainly based among non-proletarian forces and mainly based on expectations of some vague notion of 'radical change' (sometimes even posed as 'liberation' or 'revolution') which, ultimately, would leave the foundations of imperialism unaltered and which, therefore, proved in the end illusory." (Revolution, June 1977, p. 3)

This is turning truth on its head. It is the Marxist-Leninist Party which must fight to lead the revolutionary movement and imbue the proletariat with Marxist-Leninist consciousness. In the '60's and early '70's it was the longstanding betrayal of the "C"PUSA, the collapse of the Progressive Labor Party and the neo-revisionist strategy of the pre-party collectives that was responsible for leaving the mass movement confused and leaderless. To blame the masses and denounce the revolutionary movement on this account, to deny its revolutionary character and present it as not antagonistic to imperialism, this is an activity worthy of a renegade; it is to spit on the heroic actions and the self-sacrifice of the masses. Just imagine that! Mr. Avakian, who has never yet been correct on any fundamental question of the American revolution, is up on his high horse about the confused ideas of the masses! The only possible conclusions that a Marxist-Leninist could draw from the widespread damage done to the revolutionary movement by opportunism, social-democracy, New Leftism, cultural nationalism, Trotskyism and revisionism, are quite different. Marxist-Leninists hold that this history shows that it is absolutely necessary to reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Party as the decisive subjective factor of the revolution and as the only way to fight revisionism and opportunism. And one could also draw the further conclusion that any thought of the Marxist-Leninist party spontaneously coming from the mass movement was the sheerest wishful thinking.

Actually, the "RCP's" theory of the backwardness of the masses is the same as that of the Klonskyite "CP(ML)". Mr. Klonsky explains his version of the "non-revolutionary situation" as follows: "... a revolutionary situation does not presently exist in the U.S. and the consciousness of the broad masses does not yet center on the need for revolution and socialism... " (Political Report to the Founding Congress of the CP(ML), p. 30) Thus Klonsky too reduces everything to the question of the correct "consciousness". The "CP(ML)" draws from this the conclusion that the masses must be "educated". By education, the Klonskyites do not mean education in the Marxist- Leninist sense of advancing the revolution, but in the sectarian sense of teaching the masses the opportunist formulas by rote. This fits in well with the "CP(ML)'s" being organized as a loose Browderite educational association.

However, let us return to the "RCP". In actual practice, the "RCP" passes from blaming the masses for backwardness to straightforward mockery of the revolution. They think that it is the height of wit to sneer: "Hey COUSML, where is your insurrection?' This sneer is the height of reformism and social- chauvinism. It is the concentrated expression of denial of the revolution. Listen, Mr. Avakian, gentleman sir, most learned savant, the "COUSML insurrection" is developing right in front of your eyes. The "COUSML insurrection" can be seen in the irreconcilable struggle against social-chauvinism and Chinese revisionism and in defense of Marxism- Leninism, a struggle which is proving to be a veritable insurrection of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists against the opportunists. Our "insurrection" can also be seen in our protracted organizational work in the factories, where we build the Party right in the midst of the working class and imbue the proletariat with the idea of revolution. The "COUSML insurrection" can also be seen in the training of the proletariat through revolutionary actions, in the resistance movement against the attacks of the state, and in the struggle against the fascist anti-busing movement.

The World Today Is Revolutionary

The truth is that the world is not at all the way the "RCP" presents it. Today the world in general is revolutionary. A revolutionary situation has matured or is maturing in many countries while elsewhere the process is developing. The revolution is not just a distant prospect; it is not an icon to be put on the wall and prayed to on ceremonial occasions, but a problem taken up for solution. The world is moving towards great outbursts. There is no area untouched by the revolutionary ferment, no area which remains as a stable base area for imperialism. The collapse of the 2500 year old feudal monarchy in Iran is a tremendous verification of the power of the revolution.

And this situation exists in the U.S. too. The deep crisis of world capitalism has the U.S. in its tight grip, and the discontent of the masses is stirring. The objective conditions are developing. The proletarian movement has been steadily deepening and broadening. The problem is that the subjective conditions, the decisive one being the Marxist-Leninist party, are lagging. The problem is not that the masses are backward or opposed to revolution. On the contrary, the problem is that the revolutionaries are unable to guide and utilize all the currents of revolt and anger that are breaking out among the broad masses. And this lagging behind of the subjective factor, this lagging caused by the revisionist and neo-revisionist disruption of the party, is a great danger. For the situation is developing rapidly, great clashes lie ahead, and the class enemy will not stop and wait for the proletariat to get organized but will instead seek to take maximum advantage of the backwardness of the subjective factor. The class enemy will use every means to disorganize and demoralize the proletariat. Therefore there can be no complacency, no lying around dreaming that "a very rapid change in the mood of the masses" will solve all the problems of the revolution. It is only through the active role of the Marxist-Leninists, through the organization of the proletariat and its vanguard, that the objective situation can fully develop and be utilized for the revolution, as the objective and subjective factors are closely intertwined.

The Struggle Between Marxism-Leninism and Social-Chauvinism Centers on the Question of Revolution

Thus the "RCP's" sermons about the "non-revolutionary" situation mean that it has written off the revolution, that it is skeptical about the socialist revolution and deeply pessimistic about the revolutionary capacity of the proletariat and toiling masses. And this "non-revolutionary" mood of the "RCP" is in fact one of the basic attitudes underlying the theory of "three worlds". For the struggle between the social- chauvinist theorists of the "three worlds" and the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists centers on the question of the revolution. The theory of "three worlds" writes revolution off the agenda. The "three worlders" are mesmerized by the power of the imperialists, by the glitter of the money and the "culture" of the capitalist moneybags, and by the sight of the armies, bombers and missiles. They have no faith in the revolution and they scoff at the revolutionary mission of the proletariat. They hold that the masses are "backward". Their "Marxism" is a "Marxism" without revolution, a "moderate", "reasonable" "Marxism", a "Marxism" with its revolutionary soul cut out, with its revolutionary content obliterated. A so-called struggle against social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism" that does not center on the question of revolution, that does not oppose the basic theses of the "three worlders" on the backwardness of the revolutionary masses, that does not mean strengthening and advancing the revolutionary movement and inspiring faith in the revolution, is nothing but a fraud, a meaningless squabble over formulations, a debate over how best to deceive the masses. And we have seen that it is just such a "struggle" that the "RCP" is waging when it "fights" the "three worlds" theory by emblazoning on its banner the social-chauvinist writing off of the socialist revolution.

Against Social-Democratic Infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist Movement

In the February 15 issue of the MLOC's ("CPUSA (M-L)'s") paper Unite!, the MLOC pours down a torrent of disgraceful anti-communist abuse upon the COUSML. The MLOC says that "for ten years" the COUSML (and its predecessor, the ACWM(ML)) have been "more anti-Leninist" than anyone else. Thus the MLOC vents its hatred against the ACWM(ML) and COUSML for its ten years of consistent work in defense of Marxism-Leninism, in uncompromising struggle against modern revisionism, and now in the forefront of the struggle against social-chauvinism, "three worlds-ism" and Chinese revisionism. The MLOC denounces all revolutionary Marxist-Leninists by calling for the struggle to be directed at the "infantile left". For the MLOC, there is nothing good in revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, but quite a bit that is good in the social-chauvinists, "three worlders" and anti-Marxists of all types.

What lies behind the MLOC's constant war against revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and their opposition to the movement against the social-chauvinists and "three worlders"?

In the MLOC's attack against the COUSML in the August 1978 issue of Class Against Class, there too the MLOC raises the question of the history of the ACWM(ML) and the COUSML. The MLOC negates the revolutionary struggle for Marxism-Leninism of the ACWM(ML) and COUSML altogether, calls it ''irrelevant", says it can't be taken seriously, etc. Of course, the MLOC raises the question of history in its typical anti-communist and totally non-serious fashion. The MLOC calls to its aid the worst American big-power chauvinism and presents Marxism-Leninism as something imported into the U.S. "from another country", while in the February 15 article the MLOC reiterates the reactionary notion that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists have nothing to do with the proletariat and oppressed people in the U.S. But the COUSML, following the Marxist-Leninist teachings, takes the stuffy of history of the Marxist- Leninist movement in the last ten years in a serious way. We therefore looked into the history of the MLOC and its leader, Mr. Barry Weisberg.

We found that the MLOC is a social-democratic sect injected from the outside into the Marxist-Leninist movement. Mr. Weisberg is a long-time, hardened social-democrat, and he has a long history of anti-communist writings against Marxism-Leninism. He was trained in social-democracy and anti-communism at the Institute for Policy Studies, a social-democratic "think tank" centered in Washington, D. C., funded by the big bourgeoisie, and led by social-democrats who float in and out of the government. Mr. Weisberg's mentor was Marcus Raskin, a co-director of IPS and former staff member on the National Security Council under President Kennedy. Mr. Weisberg was the co-founder of the Bay Area Institute for Policy Studies (BAI). The BAI, originally connected with IPS, specialized in Asia in general and China in particular and included early advocates of U.S.-China alliance. Mr. Weisberg infiltrated into the Marxist-Leninist movement along with the big influx of dubious elements, adventurers and alien class elements during the development of the U.S.-China alliance and while the "three worlds" theory was in fashion among the opportunists.

Thus "for ten years" the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and Barry Weisberg have been at war, with Mr. Weisberg fighting the "infantile left" back in his IPS days. The struggle was the struggle between Marxism-Leninism and social-democracy. Today the basic politics of the MLOC are the same in essence as Mr. Weisberg's earlier politics. They are both social-democratic. They both combine revolutionary phrase-mongering with the most timid, ultra-reformist practice. Arid they both direct their hatred at revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. Only Mr. Weisberg's earlier open denunciations of Marxism-Leninism, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution are now replaced by mock respect for Marxism-Leninism combined with the most vicious wrecking activities against the Marxist-Leninist movement and the most utter contempt for the history of the development of the Marxist-Leninist movement.

Below we reproduce a speech, edited for publication and somewhat revised to include the newest available facts, from an internal conference of the COUSML. This speech calls for the defense of Marxism-Leninism against social-democratic infiltration.


In 1975, at the time of the disintegration of the Black Workers Congress, one of the fragments thrown off was a local clique in the Bay Area which came to call itself the MLOC. At that time the MLOC was chiefly distinguished by the fact that it could offer no explanation of its existence. A number of years later its chieftain was to make the claim that the MLOC came out of struggle against opportunism in the BWC, but in fact, at the time of the splits MLOC held no positions distinguishable from those of another BWC grouping. The reason for the coming into being of the MLOC is to be found elsewhere than in the struggle against opportunism. The strife in the BWC was seized upon to launch the career of yet another opportunist chieftain -- on the basis of combat against Marxism-Leninism.

During the years which followed the MLOC tried hard to establish for itself a distinguishing feature which would de-mark it from all others. This is a hallmark of petty bourgeois socialism, the eternal search for a principle, above the class struggle, for sectarian principle, for interests "separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole". (1) At one time the MLOC insisted upon being the only Marxist-Leninist in the U.S. who upheld Roumania as a socialist country and insisted upon this as a matter of principle; but this card castle soon collapsed. (2) At yet another time they attempted to challenge OL as to who could give a more "Marxist" cover to the theory of "three worlds" and to the theory of the Soviet Union being the "main danger". And they have a continual campaign to distinguish themselves as the foremost "Knight of the National Question". Time after time the MLOC twisted and turned in the quest for its Holy Grail, but could not distinguish themselves save by this unprincipled quest itself. For the MLOC was at the same time afflicted with another disease which is a hallmark of social democracy. This is the compulsion to attach themselves to whatever appears to be the prevailing trend while never giving up their reactionary essence. Thus, MLOC's Holy Grail proved, almost invariably to be --nothing but the prevailing trend. Comrade Lenin analyzed this phenomenon long ago:

as a trend, the Mensheviks (Russian social democrats --ed.) have displayed in 1918-21 the two qualities that characterize them: first, the ability skillfully to adapt, to "attach" themselves to the prevailing trend among the workers; and second, the ability even more skillfully to serve the whiteguards heart and soul, to serve them in action, while disassociating themselves from them in words0 Both these qualities are the logical outcome of the whole history of Menshevism... The Mensheviks "attach" themselves to the Russian Communist Party not only and even not so much because they are Machiavellian (although ever since 1903 they have shown that they are past masters in the art of bourgeois diplomacy), but because they are so "adaptable". Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability (but not all adaptability is opportunism); and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves "on principle" so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective coloring, just as a hare's coat turns white in winter. This characteristic of the Mensheviks must be kept in mind and taken into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i. e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain. (4)

Thus it was that in 1976 the MLOC snuggled up as closely as possible to the October League, but then, in September 1977, when it became evident that Marxism-Leninism would not be blown away by the huffing and puffing of a Klonsky, the MLOC hastily denounced the "three worlds" theory in words, in a vacillating way, while clinging to its reactionary essence.

Despite its misguided efforts, the MLOC was nonetheless to establish a distinguishing feature for itself, and a fascinating one at that. This is their utter hostility toward the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. From very early on the MLOC displayed a hostile attitude toward the COUSML and its revolutionary activity. It has been our assessment -- and this has been openly admitted by the MLOC in their polemic against us this past year -- that from very early on the MLOC has been fighting us; and moreover, that it is this which is their main mission in life. (5) What is fascinating about the MLOC, in light of their alleged allegiance to Marxism-Leninism, is that the more the struggle against Chinese revisionism has advanced and the more the MLOC has been forced to disassociate itself -- even if only in words and in a vacillating manner -- from the positions of the OL "three worlders", the more hostile the MLOC has become toward the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.

In recent weeks the MLOC has renewed its public attacks against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. In the February 15 issue of Unite! -- very tellingly, on the international page -- appears a venomous attack upon the COUSML. This article states: "no one in the U.S. has taken a more anti-Leninist stand, or more infantile left position than COUSML. "(6) For MLOC to raise this attack, to confess that they regard Marxism-Leninism as "anti-Leninist" and "infantile left", speaks volumes about the essential politics of MLOC, its history and basis, its view of Marxism-Leninism and of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S. What MLOC opposes as "anti- Leninist" and "infantile left" is the history of COUSML, the course of the struggle against Khrushchovite revisionism, Chinese revisionism and opportunism of all hues, the entire glorious history of consistent defense of the Party, of the proletariat, of the revolution and of Marxism-Leninism.

Our investigation shows that this is not the first time such accusations have come from these quarters. In 1971 Barry Weisberg, now chieftain of the MLOC, wrote: "There is considerable infantile worship and illusion about China amongst the Left today, but this must not blind us to the deeper lessons of Chinese Communism." (Beyond Repair: The Ecology of Capitalism. Beacon Press, Boston, 1971, p. 149. Subsequent unreferenced quotations are to this book.) For comrades to understand what it is that Weisberg regards as "infantile" and what are "the deeper lessons of Chinese Communism" we will provide some additional quotations from the same work:

"Much of Marxist thought today clings to that historical period in which Marx formulated his original teachings, without realizing in fact the dawning of conditions which must of necessity temper the contemporary Marxist view of history, "(p. 161)

"This vision entails a view of historical development which could not foresee the possibility that the realm of necessity might be incorporated into the realm of freedom within the developed capitalist world, "(p. 161)

"In other words, Marx did not envision a situation in which the necessity of scarcity might be eliminated before the elimination of capitalism ... Such a possibility is today evident with the advent of a liberating technology in which the conditions which for thousands of years required alienating labor might be abolished." (p. 161)

"Such a historical reality would call into question many of the most fundamental conceptions of contemporary Marxism.. "(p. 162) and

"The Eastern world view departs radically from that of the West regarding man's relationship to nature. The domination of nature has never been a primary occupation of the Chines 3 people, as it has of Europeans or Americans."(p. 155)

As opposed to the "infantile" Marxist-Leninists, Mr. Weisberg also found socialism in the social-imperialist and revisionist Soviet Union and in the "self-determination and workers control" for which Mr. Weisberg praises Yugoslav revisionism and the militarist communes of Israeli Zionism.

When Weisberg in 1979 attacks the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists as "infantile" it is on the identical basis to 1971. The sole difference is that today he is parading as a Marxist-Leninist and is dressing up his attacks accordingly. Weisberg is no more a Marxist- Leninist today than he was in 1971.

In our Reply to the Open Letter of MLOC we pointed out that MLOC denies the connection between open social-chauvinism and the opportunism that preceded it. We demonstrate that MLOC holds common ground With neo-revisionism on a series of questions in the proletarian revolution in the U.S., including on the workers' movement, the Afro-American people's movement and on party building. But MLOC's origins are not identical to those of the principal neo-revisionist organizations, whose leaders come out of a long history of combat against Marxism-Leninism within the revolutionary mass movements of the 1960'S, while MLOC came upon the scene miraculously in 1975, like the goddess Athena springing full-blown from the head of Zeus. MLOC is an agency of social-democracy, and its chieftain is a professional anti-communist, trained by the social-democratic instruments of the big bourgeoisie. Its origins lie, not in some illusory struggle against opportunism in the BWC, but rather, in the halls of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, B.C.

As an agency of social-democracy, MLOC carries thoroughly liberal-labor politics. On account of these liberal labor politics MLOC tends to merge with Browderism and neo-revisionism. This is the secret to the distorted and reactionary views of the MLOC.

And this is the key to MLOC's view of the history of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S., Weisberg's present-day disdain for the history of the struggles of the Marxist-Leninists (including the history of the struggle against Browder and Browderism) is the continuation of his open disdain in 1971 for Marxism-Leninism and for the revolutionary mass movements. Weisberg's newly-found thesis is that nothing which precedes him counts because it is all tainted with "Mao Tsetung Thought". Now, however, there can be an end to this period of "infantile leftism" and a return to business as usual. And what is business as usual? Social-democracy. He holds the fascinating belief that to repudiate the revisionism of Mao Tsetung will mean to- become conservative, i. e., social-democratic. When MLOC cries "anti-Leninist" it is a case of "Denounce most of all those vices which you yourself possess". (7)

It is also the secret of MLOC's peculiar combination of "revolutionary" phrase-mongering with ultra-rightist practice. The MLOC prattles on about building the revolutionary trade union movement while supporting the Labor Law Reform Act and condemning the wildcat strikes of the coal miners. The MLOC talks about "armed struggle in the pre-revolutionary period" while denouncing active resistance to fascism and raving wildly against anything they fear might actually be revolutionary action. The MLOC mouths fine phrases about the struggle for democracy, but it turns out that the MLOC regards the "essence" of democratic struggle as "us(ing) the court system to force it to uphold laws which objectively improve the conditions of the working class in their struggle for socialism. "(8) The MLOC has no conception of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist idea of democracy and the utilization of the democratic struggle to train the masses in revolutionary actions and as a part of the socialist revolution, but instead reduces democracy to parliamentary cretinism and belly- crawling before the courts, it interprets the most minor re-adjustments of the bourgeoisie's terrorist rule as "reforms" which are the goal of MLOC's struggle for democracy. MLOC's conception of democracy is not the class stand of the proletariat but the philistinism of the social-democrat. The secret of MLOC's peculiar combination of "revolutionary" phrase-mongering in general with the wildest right- ism on all concrete questions is simply that as an agency of social democracy they are so gripped in the mire of the liberal-labor politics that they literally are unable to conceive of the existence of revolutionary politics, and believe all talk to that effect to be so much eyewash. This combination of "revolutionary" phrase-mongering with extreme rightism in practice is a classical feature of social-democracy, repeatedly exposed by Comrade Lenin.

This is the basis of MLOC's hostility toward the COUSML. The hostility held by MLOC toward the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists, cloaked in '' Marxist"-sounding phrases, is a continuation of the open hostility toward Marxism-Leninism and the proletarian revolution held by the Institute for Policy Studies.

Barry Weisberg was trained and nurtured as an anti-communist publicist by the Institute for Policy Studies. (Editor's note: This part of the speech went into the IPS. The Institute for Policy Studies is a social-democratic "think tank" centered in Washington, D. C. and run by social-democrats who float in and out of appointed government positions. It is financed by the big bourgeoisie. Its purpose is to infiltrate the revolutionary mass movements, subvert them with social-democracy, destroy their revolutionary character and direct them into paths harmless to the bourgeoisie, and above all to fight to the last breath against communism. Opportunism and social-democracy in the U.S. are not just matters of some "wrong ideas" or spontaneous confusion, but are consciously sponsored by the big bourgeoisie. A description of the IPS, its counter-revolutionary activities and its major role in organizing social- democratic infiltration into the mass movement is given in the reference material to this article.)

One of the "major functions" of the IPS has been the training of anti-communist ideologues and publicists. (9) Toward this end, soon after its founding, the IPS began to accept a selected number of full-time students, averaging about one student per resident fellow. The IPS describes this program:

"The Institute has begun to build relationships with several colleges and universities: Antioch College, the University of California (Berkeley), Cornell University, the University of Illinois, and Reed College. The relationship differs from case to case, but most of the Associated Universities and Colleges send students to the Institute, some of whom receive credit from their home colleges for work done at the Institute.

"All students, whether from the Associated Colleges and Universities or from elsewhere, have an individual tutorial relationship with a Fellow and also do field work on a policy problem, either in an Institute seminar or social-invention project or in governmental or private policy program.

"... any Fellow who is prepared to become the academic tutor to a particular student is obligated to raise his name for discussion in a meeting of the Fellows. The decision as to whether to accept a particular person as a student is then up to the Fellow who proposes to be his tutor. If he decides to do so, the student is appointed in a letter from the Director of the Institute. "(10)

While he was an undergraduate, presumably at the University of California (Berkeley) where he earned his degree, Barry Weisberg was accepted as a student at the Institute for Policy Studies. At IPS his mentor was Marcus Raskin, co-director of the Institute and former staff member of President Kennedy's National Security Council. In his book Being and Doing, Marcus Raskin acknowledges the "special help from... and Barry Weisberg, students of mine in the beginning years of the Institute. "(11)

After completing the program at IPS, Weisberg returned to UC at Berkeley for his BA. One year after his graduation from Berkeley the Bay Area Institute for Policy Studies, known generally as the Bay Area Institute, was founded, "organized by Barry Weisberg and Franz Schurmann". (12) Weisberg and Schurmann were both associate fellows of IPS as well as co-directors of the BA I. The BAI was founded to specialize in Asia in general and China in particular. At the time of its founding it was funded by the IPS until it received tax-exempt status and was able to receive grants directly from the foundations. The mainstay of the BAI was senior faculty members at Berkeley, and veteran China- watchers such as Franz Schurmann and Orville Schell. The outstanding exception was Barry Weisberg, who was lacking in academic credentials (possessing only a BA) and whose field of study was ecology. Weisberg was the go-between for IPS.

In 1971 there was a dispute between Franz Schurmann and Marcus Raskin over the orientation of the BAI. Schurmann won. Weisberg resigned from the BAI. He was not, however, inactive. In 1971 Weisberg travelled to Southeast Asia on a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In 1973, as an ecology expert, he associated himself with the Bay Area Shell Strike Support Committee, and was also a staff member of United Front Press. In early 1974 he published a series of articles in the revisionist Guardian on the energy crisis, hi late 1974 he joined the Black Workers Congress after it went "multinational". A few months later, in May 1975, he split from the BWC and formed the MLOC. Thus, Marcus Raskin's protege became chairman of his own sect. (13)

That such an element was accepted into the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the U.S. teaches a serious lesson. The metamorphosis of an anti-communist, social-democratic publicist into a "Marxist-Leninist" correlates closely with the development of the U.S.-China alliance. In early 1972 Nixon went to Peking. It was after this that Weisberg developed his credentials and ties in "left" circles. In 1974 Teng Hsiao-ping spoke at the UN and gave his notorious speech elaborating the "three worlds" theory. It was after this that Weisberg joined the BWC. Only months thereafter came the disintegration of the BWC and the formation of the MLOC. During this period, through such instruments as "China friendship", the "left" circles rubbed shoulders with diverse sorts of bourgeois elements. Under the conditions of the confusion bred by opportunist influence, such elements were able to parade as being "progressive" and "revolutionary". As well, the neo-revisionist theories on the "pre-party collective", the "pre-party situation" and "the party springs spontaneously from the mass movement (or from the united front)" had resulted in factionalizing and scattering the Marxist-Leninist movement, making it easy for all kinds of dubious elements, adventurers, and alien class elements to infiltrate the Marxist- Leninist movement. The neo-revisionist opposition to the struggle against revisionism and opportunism, expressed with such theories as that the struggle against opportunism "disrupts the united front" or that "opportunism was a middle force to be united with", also created favorable conditions for infiltration into the Marxist-Leninist movement. And the neo-revisionist negation of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the party and on fighting opportunism was fostered by Chinese revisionism. On the basis of the political corruption introduced by Chinese revisionism, the corruption of the ranks of the Marxist-Leninist movement grew also, with every sort of political swindler being able to pose as "Marxist-Leninist". Defense of the integrity of the revolutionary movement requires the maintenance of a revolutionary stand against imperialism, the vigilant upholding of the party concept, and the carrying out of a resolute struggle against revisionism and opportunism of all types.

What type of element had thus succeeded in infiltrating into the Marxist-Leninist movement ? To see this, let us examine the writings of Barry Weisberg.

Beyond Repair is Barry Weisberg's magnum opus. Published in 1971, it manifests the character of Weisberg's work as a publicist for the Institute for Policy Studies. This work is, in the first place, a diatribe against Marxism-Leninism and the proletarian revolution. Set in the framework of a consideration of ecology, and veiled in "leftist"-sounding phrases, this work rehashes the anti-Marxist-Leninist arguments of the principal schools of social-democracy and anarcho-syndicalism in the U.S. at a time when the revolutionary mass movements -- and the turning of the advanced elements toward Marxism-Leninism-- had reached their peak. For this Weisberg received the highest praise of the bourgeoisie. This book received favorable reviews from many bourgeois sources, including the leading bourgeois daily, The Washington Post, which stated: "Weisberg has really created more than a book; he has created a mental exercise for the conservation movement. "(14) Richard A. Falk (Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton; Director, Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy Association) cites Weisberg as "one of the most perceptive analysts of the ecological situation". (This Endangered Planet, 1971, pp. 89-90). (15)

We will now go into this "mental exercise" in some detail... (Editor's note: this portion of the speech reviewed the line of Beyond Repair on the class struggle, the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the party of the proletariat, the critique of contemporary society, Weisberg's alternative, models and tactics, and view of socialism. The quotations from the article "The Politics of Ecology" and from the book Beyond Repair, which form the bulk of this portion of the speech, are reprinted elsewhere in the reference material.)

Thus we find:

1) Weisberg is opposed to Marxism, the class struggle, the proletarian revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

2) He provides a bourgeois critique of the "consumer" or "post-scarcity" society.

3) His utopia of "self-determination" or "liberation" means: neighborhood and regional autonomy.

4) What he dislikes in socialism: socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat ("centralism" and "hierarchy"). What he likes in socialism: autonomy, as found in -- the kibbutzim of Israel, the factories of Yugoslavia and the communes of China. His basic thesis is "today throughout the capitalist world... liberation becomes not the object of struggle but the struggle itself" (p. 164). This, stripped of its finery, is nothing but Bernstein's infamous dictum: "The movement is everything, the final aim is nothing".

It is significant to take note of Weisberg's tutors. The rhetoric of this work is taken from such well- known anti-communists as Herbert Marcuse and Andre Gorz, both of whom are repeatedly referenced, principally in Chapter Six. Also extensively borrowed from is the theoretician of "post-scarcity" anarchism, Murray Bookchin (cited in Chapter Six, n. 13, 14, 16). Bookchin, whose earlier works are published under the name Lewis Herber in German and in English, was a contributor together with Weisberg to an ecology issue of the journal Motive. The ravings of this lesser light of anti-communism in his article "Listen, Marxist!" are cited by Weisberg as "a provocative critique of Marxist thought" (Beyond Repair, p. 188) 0 To give some idea of the trashy anti-communism of Bookchin, we will describe the cover of this pamphlet and quote its first sentence. In the original edition, the cover pictures Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and. o. Bugs Bunny. The first sentence reads: "All the old crap of the thirties is coming back again -- the shit about the 'class line', the 'role of the working class', the 'trained cadres', the 'vanguard party' and the 'proletarian dictatorship'." Need more be said?

These ideologues, however, provide Weisberg his semi-anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist rhetoric. His basic theses come from other sources. Weisberg's critique of contemporary society comes from the outstanding reactionary obscurantist Lewis Mumford, author of Technics and Civilization and a host of other works, and recipient of the highest accolades of the bourgeoisie. Of this reactionary obscurantist Weisberg states: "The works of Lewis Mumford over a fifty-year period stand unrivaled as a definitive study of the origins and development of technological society." (Beyond Repair p. 185). For his liberal bourgeois critique of U.S. imperialism (Chapter Four), Weisberg relies upon Richard J. Barnet, co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies. Seven of the nine citations for Chapter Four are from fellows of the IPS or associates of the Bay Area Institute. Weisberg's utopia of "self-determination", i.e., autonomous neighborhoods, comes from Milton Kotler, author of Neighborhood Government and the federal government's Handbook on Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and who was from 1963-74 a resident fellow of IPS. Finally, never cited but present throughout the work is the hand of Marcus Raskin, co-director of the EPS and Weisberg's mentor. Weisberg's basic theses, as well as Weisberg himself, can also be found in Raskin's Being and Doing, published the same year as Beyond Repair.

Beyond Repair is not even a serious work of bourgeois scholarship. It is a rehash of the anti-Marxist- Leninist arguments of the principal schools of social- democracy and anarcho-syndicalism in the U.S. Weisberg's sole contribution to this is to elevate environmental questions from a subordinate consideration, in Mumford and Raskin, to the context of the work. But even this is borrowed from various writings of Bookchin. Beyond Repair is simply the hack work of an anti-communist, social-democratic, publicist. It is this yeoman's service to the bourgeoisie which wins Weisberg the praises of the likes of The Washington Post and Richard A. Falk.

In Beyond Repair, beneath the semi-anarchist phrases, Weisberg advances the line of municipal socialism. This school of social-democracy was a product of the degeneration of the Socialist Party on the eve of World War I. It was also known as "gas and water socialism", because municipal ownership of the public utilities was the highest aim to which municipal socialism aspired. Municipal socialism was resurrected in the 1960's by the IPS against Marxism-Leninism and the revolutionary mass movements. It became the banner of the Ford Foundation and the rationale of "community control". (16)

The politics of the MLOC are a continuation of the politics of Beyond Repair. Today, beneath the "Marxist"-sounding phrases, Weisberg mutes the peculiarities of municipal socialism in order to promote reformism in general. The reformism of Unite! closely corresponds to that of the mainstream of social-democracy, as can be found, for example, in In These Times, weekly newspaper of the IPS. It is this reformism which the EPS is today raising up, against Marxism-Leninism and against the coming upsurge of the workers', movement.

Apart from a vast difference in rhetoric and minor differences in line, the social-democracy of Weisberg's Beyond Repair and the social-democracy of Weisberg's MLOC are at base the same. Both are dedicated to the infiltration and subversion of the revolutionary movement with the most rightist social- democratic reformism and both harbor an undying hatred against revolutionary Marxism-Leninism. They both even give the same slogan of struggle against the "infantile leftism" of Marxism-Leninism. It is the responsibility of all Marxist-Leninists to maintain vigilance against the infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist movement with social-democracy, to uphold the purity of Marxism-Leninism and the integrity of the party's ranks.


(1) Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1970, p. 47.

(2) The MLOC journals Unite! and Communist Line (now called Class Against Class) carried a multitude of articles. For example, see the Unite! articles "Training Successors to the Revolution", Vol. 2, No. 4, August-September 1976, pp. 8-9, and "Uphold Proletarian Internationalism -- Build the United Front Against the Two Superpowers", Vol. 2, No. 6, December-January 1976-77, p. 3.

(3) MLOC's thorough-going "three worlds-ism" and "main danger-ism" reappear repeatedly. For example, see the Preface by the Central Committee of the MLOC to the pamphlet "The Struggle Against Imperialist War and the Tasks of the Communists", October 1976. Another typical example is the article "Africans Unite Against U.S. S. R. Backed Invasion of ZAIRE", Unite!, Vol. 3, No. 5, June 1977, p. 13. Even after the MLOC denounced the "three worlds" theory, it continued to write "three worlds-ist" articles. To this day it vacillates on the significance of the thesis of "directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism" and prefers to avoid the question whenever possible.

(4) V. I. Lenin, "Purging the Party", Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 40-1.

(5) See "Reply to the COUSML Pamphlet 'Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC'", Class Against Class, No. 11, August 1978.

(6) "COUSML Gets in Step", Unite!, Vol. 5, No. 8, February 15, 1979.

(7) V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 88. Lenin is referring to the behavior of a character in a literary portrait drawn by I, S. Turgenev in his prose poem "A Rule of Life".

(8) Unite!, October 1977, "Defend Bennie Lenard! All Out for October 11th!", p. 7, col. 2. This passage is discussed in the COUSML pamphlet "Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC", pp. 16-17.

(9) IPS, The First Three Years, 1963-66.

(10) IPS, The First Three Years, 1963-66, I. "The Role of the Institute", and V. Appendices A. "Information for Prospective Students".

(11) Marcus Raskin, Being and Doing, Random House, New York, 1971, p. viii.

(12) Ibid., p. 420.

(13) Research by the COUSML; Nation, January 10, 1972, pp. 51-2; Our Lives Are at Stake, United Front Press, 1973; June 19, 1975 untitled publication of the MLOC.

(14) The Washington Post, Jan. 29, 1973, p. 6.

(15) Richard A. Falk, This Endangered Planet, 1971, pp. 89-90.

(16) For a description of the IPS's work for municipal socialism see the IPS publication entitled The First Three Years, 1963-66. Municipal socialism can be found in the writings of a host of IPS fellows. For example, see the writings of Kotler, Alperowitz and Raskin for municipal socialism with "democratic socialist" garb, and the writings of Hess and Weisberg for municipal socialism with semi-anarchist, 'libertarian socialist" phrases.

[Back to Top]


A vulgar, trashy article demolishing the COUSML in a single blow appears on the international page of the February 15th issue of Unite!, the newspaper of the MLOC ("CPUSA(M-L)"). The article is short, but it is crammed full of anti-communism. Its title is "COUSML Gets in Step". The COUSML is supposed to be getting in step "in order to appear to be in step with the world Marxist-Leninist movement". Anyone who has been active in "left" politics knows that this is the language of the paid anti-communist scribblers of the bourgeois press--who always and everywhere present the principled stand of the local Marxist-Leninist Party as the frightened antics of mindless puppets who allegedly must make abrupt turns to "get in step" with each shift in world communist policy. The COUSML is alleged to have "found it necessary to abruptly change its colors" (from red to red?) on the two issues of Comrade William Z. Foster and Mr. Mao Tsetung. The COUSML has not changed its evaluation of Comrade Foster. That "abrupt change" is just another fairytale of the MLOC, which cannot survive except by floating as many rumors, gossips, intrigues and red herrings as possible. As to Mr. Mao Tsetung, we invite any reader who is interested in a serious discussion of an important problem of world significance to read the article starting on the front page of this issue of The Workers' Advocate entitled "Mao Tsetung Thought Is Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist". This article is the result of long study and discussion inside the COUSML. We shall leave it to the MLOC to treat important questions in the non-serious breeziness of the gutter bourgeois press. Finally, the MLOC reaches deep into the arsenal of hack journalism to trot out its charge that "For COUSML, however, its history and its current existence has nothing to do with the proletariat and oppressed people in the U.S." Anti-communists everywhere present the proletariat as a class without an historical mission, a class without revolutionary sentiment and revolutionary organization, and on this basis denounce the communists as simply a handful of outside agitators having "nothing to do with the proletariat and oppressed people". The MLOC can't even resist smirking at the alleged "curious appearance" of the communists. It is one of the serious crimes of the neo-revisionists, the MLOC and the opportunists in general that they have made fashionable inside the "left" the use of the ugliest phrases and anti-communist sneers taken from the gutter bourgeois press. The time is coming when the class conscious proletariat will hold the opportunists responsible for their anticommunist agitation.

In their trashy bit of anti-communist agitation, the MLOC makes clear, and not for the first time, its fervent hatred for the forces of revolutionary Marxism- Leninism in the U. S, The MLOC admits that its real program is and has always been to fight the "infantile left" which "for ten years" has had "a more anti- Leninist stand" than anyone else. The MLOC does not regard its worse enemies as the "three worlders" or the Khrushchovite revisionists of the "C'PUSA or the Trotskyites or the reformists...but takes the camp of revolutionary Marxism-Leninism led by the COUSML as allegedly the most anti-Leninist of all. In fact, in this way the MLOC is picking up the dirty banner of the struggle against "ultra-Leftism" from the neo-revisionists and "three worlders" of the OL and RU type. Both the OL (now the "CP(M-L)") and the RU (now the "RCP,USA") fought against Marxism- Leninism and opposed the struggle against revisionism by advocating that the struggle should be waged against the "ultra-left". They held that revisionism was the main danger internationally, or in general, or in the long run... but the immediate task was to fight "ultra-leftism" inside the U.S. Marxist-Leninist movement. And once again the MLOC picks up the dirtiest, discredited trash from the "three worlders", only substituting "infantile leftism" for "ultra-leftism". This, as well as many other deeds of the MLOC, irresistibly testifies to the MLOC's long history of open support for the "three worlds" theory, for the thesis that the Soviet social-imperialists are the "main danger" and for all of the basic politics of the Klonskyite social-chauvinists. And when the growing prestige of Marxism-Leninism, that resulted from the struggle against social-chauvinism and the "three worlds" theory, forced the MLOC to drop its open support for "three worlds-ism" in September 1977, then the MLOC commenced a career of professional conciliation to "three worlds-ism" and social-chauvinism. They continued to uphold the entire corrupt arsenal of "three worlds-ism", they wrote that the "three worlders" such as the OL "once opposed revisionism consistently and stood for revolution" (1) and intensified their struggle against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. In an earlier attack against the COUSML in the August 1978 issue of Class Against Class, the MLOC tried to explain away its conciliation with the Klonskyite "three worlders", its refusal to fight against the basic theses of "three worlds-ism" (Chinese revisionism) and its opposition to the struggle against social- chauvinism by arguing that the MLOC was too busy fighting the "CPUSA. But in fact the MLOC has no serious interest in the fight against either the "C"P USA nor the "CP(M-L)". On the contrary, the MLOC is a notorious conciliator with revisionism. And with its present article it admits the truth... its fight is against "infantile leftism".

Thus the MLOC's hatred for the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists is but the flip side of its history of "three worlds-ism", and its constant striving to give the most "Marxist" covering to the flimsiest rightist, reformist politics. The MLOC has opposed the struggle against the social-chauvinism of the Klonskyite "three worlders" at every step along the way. In early 1977 they advocated that the struggle should be against Trotskyism just at the time that the "three worlders" and the social-chauvinists were making a big fuss about the so-called "Trotskyism" of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists. As part of this they put out a pamphlet of reprints entitled "Two Articles on Trotskyism" in which one of the articles was a reprint from Peking Review entitled "The 'Gang of Four' and the Trotskyites". In July 1977 they denounced the "RCP,USA" for being among those "who belittle the struggle against Soviet social- imperialism", when the truth was that the "RCP,USA" was stressing the question of Soviet social-imperialism in a one-sided manner in order to defend the basic ideological theses of "three worlds-ism". After the MLOC finally dropped open "three worlds- ism" in September 1977, while still continuing to give such basic "three worlds" theses as that the Western European imperialists are "inadequately rearmed", they immediately intensified their struggle against the Marxist-Leninists and denounced the whole movement against the "three worlds" theory and social- chauvinism, boasting that "We (the MLOC--ed.) have generally taken a leading role in pointing out its (the party program's--ed.) importance--in pointing to the fact that the wave of polemics in 1976 and 1977 were of little value because they were not geared to the party program." (2) But it was precisely this "wave of polemics in 1976 and 1977" that denounced the thesis of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" and the "three worlds" theory--and the MLOC opposed them originally because the MLOC was then in favor of the "three worlds" theory. In their polemic against us of August 1978 the MLOC keeps up the same denunciation of the polemics against social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism". The MLOC openly calls the evaluation of the struggle against social-chauvinism as the "heart of the difference between the MLOC and the COUSML, in many ways". (3) The MLOC disparages this struggle by, don't laugh, counterposing it to the struggle against modern revisionism. First the MLOC opposed the struggle against the "three worlds" theory and social- chauvinism because they openly supported these theories. Then the MLOC concocted the thesis that the polemics were of little value because they allegedly didn't involve questions of the Party program. Finally in August 1978 the MLOC concocts the most "left" excuse conceivable--it is against fighting social- chauvinism because it is for the struggle against modern revisionism! In the March 1, 1979 issue of Unite! the MLOC writes an editorial where they conciliate the Klonskyite Pentagon-socialists by denying that they have ever given a "direct call" to the working class to collaborate with U.S. imperialism. Listen to this: "It won't be long before the CP/ML not only chastises the U.S. bourgeoisie for its supposed lack of aggressiveness, but comes out with a direct call to the U.S. working class to set aside its struggle against U.S. imperialism because it would 'weaken the struggle against Soviet social imperialism'. " (underlining added) What shameless bootlicking of the social-chauvinists! The "direct call" was given over two and a half years ago in the thesis of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism." Yet in March 1979 the MLOC prettifies the "CP(M-L)" and prettifies the thesis of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism." The MLOC does not regard the "CP(M-L)"'s position of "directing the main blow against Soviet social-imperialism" as the most anti-Leninist stand. Oh no, they are mild, meek, benevolent and understanding with the social-chauvinists and save their savage attacks for the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists with their alleged "curious appearance".

What lies behind the MLOC's frantic war against the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists and their conciliation of social-chauvinism? The MLOC itself has raised the question of the history of the ACWM(ML) and COUSML from 1969 to the present in their polemic of August 1978. Once again, in their anti-communist outburst on February 15, they again raise the question of "ten years" of history. Therefore we looked more closely into the entire history of the MLOC. The MLOC itself is a group of vagrant intellectuals, without either roots in the masses or stable principles, which came into existence in 1975. It does not represent a trend inside the Marxist-Leninist movement. Therefore one of the few ways to study its history was to trace back the history of its guiding spirit and chairman, Barry Weisberg. It turns out that Mr. Weisberg has been fighting the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists for this entire period. He was trained in the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. The IPS is a social-democratic "think tank" devoted to the struggle against communism and headed by social-democratic intellectuals who move in and out of positions in the executive branch of the government. In 1970 and 1971 Mr. Weisberg wrote anti-communist books that explicitly denounce Marxism-Leninism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and "infantile leftism", in order to put forward social-democratic politics. He praised the Israeli Zionist kibbutzim, Yugoslav revisionism and Soviet revisionism as "socialist". Thus right from the start, "for ten years" he was opposed to the revolutionary politics of the ACWM(ML) and the revolutionary dissemination of the classics of Marxism- Leninism. Mr. Weisberg moved into the Marxist-Leninist movement through the U.S.-China alliance. He was a co-founder of the Bay Area Institute, an off-shoot of the IPS which was devoted mainly to the study of Asia in general and China in particular and which included early advocates of U.S.-China alliance. From that time to the present, he has preserved his social-democratic politics while adapting his phraseology to the prevailing trend. With the victory of Marxism-Leninism among the advanced section of the activists, Mr. Weisberg shifted from social-democratic politics combined with open denunciation of Marxism-Leninism to social-democratic politics combined with alleged "Marxism-Leninism". The MLOC has social-democratic politics combined with "left"-sounding phrase-mongering. This is the secret of its constant war upon the Marxist-Leninists and its history of first open "three worlds-ism" and then blatant conciliation of the "three worlders". The MLOC's social-democratic politics lead it to fight the Marxist-Leninists as the worst enemy, to curse the "infantile left". At the same time its social-democratic politics put it into close affinity with the Browderite liberal-labor politics common to the "three worlders'', the neo-revisionists, the "C"PUSA and the open social-democrats.

The MLOC exposes its social-democracy with its stand on Mao Tsetung Thought. According to the MLOC, to abandon Mao Tsetung Thought in the interests of defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism is to have "adopted a more conservative stance". MLOC regards the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin not as the most dynamic and revolutionary theory known to history, but as "more conservative" than the revisionism of Mao Tsetung Thought. Now that Chinese revisionism is being repudiated, the MLOC interprets this as a struggle against "infantile leftism" and holds that the movement can throw off its pretension to revolution and return to tame, "conservative", social-democratic politics.

The MLOC is thus trying to write off the entire history of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist movement from the '60's to the present under the hoax that it is all tainted with "Mao Tsetung Thought" and "infantile leftism". In doing this, the MLOC is joining a whole chorus of the opportunists and the bourgeoisie itself. They all are trying their best to demoralize the revolutionary mass movement. Some of the bourgeois publicists are openly boasting about the influx of capital in China and the rule of the most fascist elements, like Teng Hsiao-ping. The "C"PUSA, the Soviet revisionists and the Trotskyites are patting themselves on the back for having opposed China from imperialist and revisionist positions. Still others pretend to support the present Marxist-Leninist movement while cursing it on the pretext of its earlier support for Mao Tsetung. Now that the Marxist-Leninists themselves, through their own work and struggle, have succeeded in penetrating the veil of mystery around China and in learning the truth about the ideas guiding the Communist Party of China, all sorts of wise-acres simply copy what the Marxist-Leninists are saying and then turn around and reproach the Marxist-Leninists for not having grasped these things years earlier. Cheap and easy!

Should the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists hang their heads and feel crestfallen because they supported Mao Tsetung Thought in the past ? Should the history of the revolutionary movements of the '60's and '70's be written off ? Never. We say: let the cowards flinch, the traitors sneer and the scribblers scribble. The issue was that the advanced section of the activists took up Marxism-Leninism, denounced Khrushchovite revisionism and supported the international Marxist-Leninist communist movement. At that time it seemed that China and Mao Tsetung stood in the van of the movement against modern Khrushehovite revisionism; the question seemed to be: Khrushchov or Mao? The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists supported China because they wished to fight revisionism and take up Marxism-Leninism. The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists also supported Albania and the PLA right from the start and propagated the literature of the Party of Labor of Albania and the writings of Comrade Enver Hoxha. Right from the start, we knew there were powerful revisionist forces in China, and we supported Mao because he claimed to be fighting the revisionists and because the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution removed such notorious elements as Liu Shao-chi. It was correct to support China against the ferocious attacks of imperialism and revisionism as long as China fought imperialism and revisionism and in the hope that the Chinese Party might find its way to the stand of Marxism-Leninism in the heat of the battle against modern revisionism.

The taking over of certain Chinese formulations, and mainly the fostering by the Chinese revisionists of the mainstream of neo-revisionism and the direct wrecking activities of the Chinese revisionists against the revolutionary movement did immense damage to the U. So Marxist-Leninist movement. But it is a historical fact that the struggle between Marxism- Leninism and Chinese revisionism did not break out on the issue of the formulation of "Mao Tsetung Thought", as the MLOC pretends. True, the "Communist Labor Party of the USNA" brought up this issue. But as the "CLP, USNA" exposed itself as a left-sloganeering front of Soviet revisionism, its fight "against" Mao Tsetung Thought could not but disgust the revolutionary anti-revisionist fighters. The Trotskyites, Khrushehovite revisionists, imperialist professors and others also brought up their style of "opposition" to "Mao Tsetung Thought". But this too could only arouse revulsion. No, in the U.S. the struggle against Chinese revisionism was expressed in the struggle against neo-revisionism. Right from the start, this was a life-and-death struggle. The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists fought against the opportunist theses of "pre-party collectives", "ultra-left as the main danger", "the party will spring from the mass movement or the united front", "the proletariat is backward", "the objective conditions for revolution are not ripe", and so forth. The revolutionary Marxist-Leninists refused to accept the "united front against imperialism" as the strategy of American revolution. The Chinese revisionists took an active part in these struggles by slandering and denigrating the ACWM(ML) and COUSML and promoting all sorts of neo-revisionist, revisionist and opportunist groups, including the OL, the RU, the MLOC, etc. This struggle finally broke out in full force against the thesis of "directing the main blow at Soviet social-imperialism" and against "three worlds-ism". And it was at that time that it became apparent that it was Chinese revisionism that was the target. It is this struggle against neo-revisionism, social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism" that was the struggle against Chinese revisionism and that prepared the ground for learning the truth about Mao Tse-tung Thought. Thus the exposure of the roots of Chinese revisionism in the "three worlds" theory is a continuation of the movement against social-chauvinism; it should inspire confidence in the justness of the fight against neo-revisionism.

Therefore the lessons that should be drawn from the exposure of the roots of Chinese revisionism in Mao Tsetung Thought are the direct opposite of those that the bourgeoisie and opportunists are drawing. The repudiation of Mao Tsetung Thought teaches us:

(a) that the revolutionary Marxist-Leninists must never become complacent about defending the purity of Marxism-Leninism and must carry the struggle against modern revisionism through to the end;

(b) It underlines the absolute necessity of the movement against social-chauvinism and "three worldism" and of the repudiation of neo-revisionism; and

(c) It should inspire confidence in the hard-gained maturity of the Marxist-Leninists who have maintained their bearings in the face of very complex and deceptive problems.

Now one can see the utter hypocrisy and totally false position of the MLOC. They are prattling on about the "infantile left" position on Mao Tsetung Thought in order to demoralize the Marxist-Leninist movement and condemn it all as tainted with Mao Tsetung Thought. Nor is this the first time that the MLOC has found some pretext or other to issue some sweeping condemnation of the whole Marxist-Leninist movement, as when it waged its "two-line struggle" in 1976 in support of learning from the lessons of revisionist Romania. But, as the old saying goes, the emperor has no clothes. For the MLOC is treating us to the revolting spectacle of seeing social- democrats parade around as paragons of revolutionary virtue. It hardly befits those who denounced Marxism-Leninism and the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1971 and supported Zionism and revisionism, and who in 1976 were still fervently propagating the importance of learning from Romania, to pose as the judges of the Marxist-Leninist movement. Imagine that: Mr. Weisberg, a co-founder of the Bay Area Institute, an institute funded by the bourgeoisie in order to help develop the U.S.-China alliance, is denouncing the Marxist-Leninists for Mao Tsetung Thought!

However, the truth is that in raising the issue of Mao Tsetung Thought, the MLOC is following the recipe of denouncing as loudly as possible what it wants to hide in its own actions. Let us examine the MLOC's formulations on Mao Tsetung Thought:


(A) First of all, the MLOC itself used the formulation Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and even today it admits that "The view of the MLOC... was that the defense and development of Marxism-Leninism by Mao Tsetung was on a par with that of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. " (Unite!, March 15, 1979, p. 7) If the MLOC had an interest in revolution or in Marxism-Leninism, they would therefore pass on to the repudiation of the basic theses of Chinese revisionism and of Mao Tsetung Thought rather than trying to quibble on whose wrong and discarded formulations on Mao Tsetung Thought were the best.

(B) But since the MLOC is making a big fuss about the question of whether Mao Tsetung Thought was regarded as a higher stage or level of Marxism-Leninism, let us quote from the statement issued by the Central Committee of the MLOC entitled "In Commemoration of Mao Tsetung". The MLOC wrote that "Based upon a deep and penetrating analysis of the degeneration of the subjective factor in the Soviet Union leading to the restoration of capitalism, Mao Tsetung carried forward the great teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and raised them to a higher level, both in theory and practice, (underlining added --ed.) Mao Tsetung fully elaborated the basic questions of classes and class struggle during the entire historical period of socialism... (emphasis as in the original --ed.)" (p. 12) It also seemed that Mao Tsetung was the dialectician of the modern era, as the MLOC wrote that "Mao Tsetung, more than anyone else in the modern era, recognized the lesson of dialectics well." (p. 20) The MLOC combined this with criticism of Stalin. The statement said: "While making certain errors, Stalin did recognize in theory that classes and class struggle still continue during socialist construction, but was not able to guarantee the hold on state power by the proletariat. " (p. 20)

The Chinese revisionists liked this statement so much that in the November 28, 1976 issue of Hsinhua News Bulletin, item 112714 reported on this statement and carried excerpts. No statement from the COUSML on this or any other matter was ever reprinted in the Hsinhua News Bulletin.

(C) Thus the MLOC gave the exact line from the Chinese revisionists on Mao Tsetung Thought. So what is behind their attacks on the COUSML? In the Unite! Special Supplement to the issue of March 1, 1979, on page 3, the MLOC attacks the COUSML and writes: "Even the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist Leninists,...,for ten years raved how 'Mao Tsetung is our Chairman', and followed the line of Lin Piao that Mao Tsetung Thought was 'a higher and completely new stage of Marxism', " (underlining added --ed.)

Thus according to the MLOC, it is not the line of Chinese revisionism to negate Marxism-Leninism with Mao Tsetung Thought, but only the line of the Lin Piao faction. Therefore when the MLOC followed the "three worlds" formulations of the Chou En-lai - Hua Kuo-feng factions, and when the COUSML refused to follow every gyration in line from Peking Review, the MLOC tars COUSML with the brand of "Lin Piao- ist". Charming, is it not?

In fact, the MLOC is following the line of the Chinese revisionists and of the OL social-chauvinists to negate the struggle against revisionism by replacing it with the struggle against the "ultra-left". After the Tenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the OL took up this cry against the "ultra-left Lin Piao" and even today the MLOC is repeating the same tired-out Klonskyite trick. Only the MLOC replaces the word "ultra-left" with the word "infantile left". So when the MLOC raises the charge of "infantile leftism" and "Lin Piao-ism", it is not doing this because it has broken off with Chinese revisionism, but because it is still following the same basic line as Chinese revisionism.

The struggle against Chinese revisionism is not expressed in MLOC's crusade against Lin Piao and the "infantile left". On the contrary, it was the struggle against neo-revisionism, "three worlds-ism" and social-chauvinism that expressed the struggle against Chinese revisionism. Now even more of the utter moral corruption of the MLOC is apparent. For while they shout about Mao Tsetung Thought, in practice they opposed the movement against social- chauvinism and "three worlds-ism" through which the Marxist-Leninists came to recognize the ugly features of Chinese revisionism. The MLOC preached in its tirade against the COUSML in the August 1978 issue of Class Against Class the utter futility of fighting such a minor issue as the "CP(ML)" or social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism" in general. And the MLOC did so at the very moment that the questions of Chinese revisionism and the roots of the "three worlds" theory were heating up as major is sues o The MLOC asked in their tirade of August 1978 about who has-more influence, "C"PUSA or someone else, in the "trade unions like the United Electrical Workers, steel workers, auto workers, and longshoremen. " They raised the question of "C'PUSA's influence in the Afro-American people's movement and the question of Angela Davis. But the importance of fighting Chinese revisionism and "three worlds-ism" cannot be judged the way the MLOC does. The real issue was that the purity of Marxism-Leninism was at stake, and not the temporary balance among the bureaucrats in the AFL-CIO. Only if the Marxist-Leninist movement defeated "three worlds-ism" and Chinese revisionism would it be able to carry out any of its revolutionary tasks at all. And it is only the repudiation of social-chauvinism and "three worlds-ism", including that allegedly awful wave of polemics that started in 1976 and 1977 and that MLOC says were of such "little value", that allows the Marxist-Leninist movement to hold up its head with honor. Without this struggle, the mass movement would have been handed over to the revisionists, who would have been able to pass themselves off as the genuine opponents of social- chauvinism.

The struggle against Chinese revisionism and the exposure of the roots of the "three worlds" theory in Mao Tsetung Thought are thus yet further proof of the bankruptcy of the social-democratic politics championed by the MLOC.


(1) Revolution Will Surely Triumph, by the Central Committee of the MLOC, November 1977, reprinted April 1978, p. 13. It is cited on p. 35 of the COUSML's Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC.

(2) Unite!, October 1977, major centerfold article entitled Genuine Unity Rests on Principle", p. 11, col. 2. It is cited on p. 25 of Reply to the Open Letter of the MLOC.

(3) Class Against Class, August 1978, p. 43. End.


UNITE! International News

COUSML Gets in Step

In Case You Didn't Notice

The Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists (COUSML) has found it necessary to abruptly change its colors in order to appear to be in step with the world Marxist-Leninist movement. In the January 3rd issue of their irregularly published newspaper, The Workers' Advocate, we find two interesting developments.

First, COUSML no longer includes Mao Tsetung along with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin in its ads and logos. This is particularly curious because no one in the U.S. has taken a more anti-Leninist stand, or more infantile left position than COUSML. For 10 years COUSML claimed "Mao Tsetung is our chairman" and that "Mao Tsetung Thought represents a new and higher stage of Marxism-Leninism."

Noted for their curious appearance with Red Books held aloft and huge Mao buttons, COUSML now finds this fashion out of step. Without a word it has adopted a more conservative stance in order to try to win a place for itself within the ranks of Marxist-Leninists.

Second, we find that Mao Tsetung's favorite star in the United States, William Z. Foster no longer holds a place of honor with COUSML. Until recently, COUSML bookstores proudly bore the name William Z. Foster Bookstores. Again without explanation, this was dropped in November and the stores renamed Marxist-Leninist Books and Periodicals.

As the Marxist-Leninist parties throughout the world broaden and deepen the struggle against Chinese revisionism, many anti-Leninist groups will try to re-cloak themselves in order to appear as Marxist-Leninists. For COUSML, however, its history and its current existence has nothing to do with the proletariat and oppressed people in U.S. Donning new robes will hardly change its revisionist essence.]

[Back to Top]

Reference material on the social-democratic infiltration of the Marxist-Leninist movement

On the Institute for Policy Studies

Barry Weisberg was trained in social-democracy and anti-communism at the Institute for Policy Studies. While an undergraduate, Mr. Weisberg was accepted as a student by the IPS. At the IPS his mentor was Marcus Raskin, co-director of the IPS and former staff member of President Kennedy's National Security Council. The politics of the MLOC are a continuation of the social-democratic politics of the IPS, only the open hostility to Marxism-Leninism and to the proletarian revolution has been masked with "Marxist"-sounding phrases. The MLOC represents the infiltration of social-democracy into the Marxist- Leninist movement.

The IPS is an important center for social-democratic subversion and infiltration of the revolutionary mass movements. Below we give a brief report on the IPS, its work, its goals, its funding, its personnel, and its infiltration into the mass movement. At the end we append bibliographic and biographical material on both Barry Weisberg and on various of the personalities of the IPS.

The head office for the Institute for Policy Studies is located at 1901 Q Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20004. It was founded in 1963 and had as its co-directors Richard J. Barnet and Marcus Raskin. It supersedes the Peace Research Institute which was founded in 1961.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is a social-democratic 'think tank" directly tied to the big bourgeoisie and to the state. IPS was founded by officials of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations with the initial purpose of influencing the peace movement in the direction of pacifism, reformism and anti-communism. With the development of the peace movement, the emergence of the struggles of the Afro-American people and of the incipient student movement, the big bourgeoisie found itself lacking in social-democratic instruments to curb and misdirect the mass movements and to fight against Marxism- Leninism. The establishment of the IPS was one of a series of measures taken to fill this gap. It has served as an organizing center of the big bourgeoisie, firstly, to gather, finance, nurture and train ''left" anti-communist ideologues and publicists, and, secondly, to directly intervene in the mass movements. IPS has influenced the ''left" through its own and subsidiary institutes -- the Institute for Southern Studies in Atlanta, which publishes Southern Exposure; the Cambridge Institute for Policy Studies; the Bay Area Institute which was co-founded by Barry Weisberg; and so forth -- and through its own reformist publications (some current periodicals are In These Times, Ways and Means, Race and Class) and through editorial influence in others (most significantly Ramparts). (1) Through these and other means it has sought to develop a social-democratic center against Marxism-Leninism and to inject reformism and anti-communism into the mass movements.

Beginning more narrowly with politics closely associated with the Eisenhower administration, IPS has come to reflect in its publications a greater range of politics from Democratic Party urban reform programs (through IPS's Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies) to international social-democracy (through IPS's Transnational Institute). The appearance of ''socialism" around IPS has been the thoroughly anti-communist "libertarian socialism" and ''democratic socialism" whose academians and publicists take as their raison d'etre fighting against Marxism-Leninism.

IPS's predecessor, the Peace Research Institute, was founded in April, 1961 by James J. Wadsworth (Deputy and then Permanent Representative to the UN for Eisenhower, 1953-61; Chairman of the FCC for Johnson, 1965-69) and Arthur Larson (Eisenhower speech-writer, Undersecretary of Labor, Director of the U.S. Information Agency, and later advisor to Johnson). (2) The Peace Research Institute assembled advisory bodies consisting of representatives of the big bourgeoisie and senior academics, issued publications and held conferences bringing together peace activist groups with religious, trade union and government bodies. By 1963 their activities were including Norman Thomas of the Socialist Party and other prominent social-democrats. This work was continued by IPS after its establishment in October 1963.

From the time of its establishment, IPS has been jointly directed by Richard J. Barnet and Marcus Raskin, both officials of the Kennedy administration who left their government posts for that purpose. The role of IPS is amply revealed by the words of its co-director Richard Barnet. Speaking of the importance of social-democracy, Barnet chides Congress for its ignorance compared to the enlightened CIA, stating:

"One of the arguments for the widespread covert funding (by the CIA --ed.) of student, church and labor groups and the subventions to radio stations and magazines throughout the Cold War was that Congress was too conservative and too subject to the pressures of the McCarthy era to support the liberal or social-democratic forces which the agency wanted to enlist in the fight against communism. "

--Testimony to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, February 23, 1976.

Thus, in its own co-director's words, the role of IPS: a social-democratic institute of the big bourgeoisie "in the fight against communism", against Marxism-Leninism and the revolution. (3)

The IPS gathered an assemblage of social-democratic academians and publicists, whom it trained, nurtured and sponsored. Today the IPS has over 70 resident and associate fellows, as well as an internship program for carefully selected students. (4) IPS provides its fellows with funding, research facilities, publishing connections, seminars and other forums for their work. As well as its own organs, such as Ways and Means and Class and Race, the IPS exerts editorial influence in a host of others, providing ready outlets for the products of its fellows. (5) In this way it is able to maintain an extensive network numbering in its ranks many of the leading anticommunist, social-democratic academians and publicists in the United States.

The IPS deals with all social questions; but its first love has always been the international front, and above all else, it functions as a sort of "left" shadow State Department, hi the 1960's the IPS was an active advocate of the formation of the U.S. -China alliance and of support for social-democracy in Western Europe. Officials of the IPS such as Peter Weiss (chairman) and Barnet (co-director) travel extensively abroad, to Paris, Hanoi, Moscow, etc. to confer with leading officials.(6) In the mid-1970's the IPS launched the Transnational Institute, with offices in Washington and Amsterdam, to advance its ties with international social-democracy. At the time of his assassination, Orlando Letelier, Allende's former ambassador to the U.S., was an official of the TNI.

The content of IPS's work on the international front is given in its own words:

"Currently, the work of the Fellows in foreign policy centers on the study of revolution in the decolonized world and of United States relations with revolutionary governments or movements there.... They are exploring legal and political institutions that might make it possible to reduce or transform the areas of growing conflict between the rich countries and the poor. The ultimate purpose of the project is to explore alternative policies the United States might adopt towards revolutionary societies, but the first stage of the study is to acquire a better theoretical and practical understanding of what in fact is happening in these societies. "(7)

Thus IPS acts as a vanguard of the neo-colonial policies of U.S. imperialism.

To further both its work and influence, the IPS has spawned a series of subsidiary regional institutes, each specializing in a different field of work. Each of these institutes was founded with funding from IPS, and with a former IPS resident fellow or student acting as director of the regional institute while remaining an associate fellow of IPS. The Atlanta institute was conceived to specialize in the regional politics of the southern U.S. The Cambridge Institute for Policy Studies specializes in social-democratic theory and politics in the U.S. It has created around itself a number of satellite institutes and journals. The Bay Area Institute for Policy Studies, also known simply as the Bay Area Institute, specializes in Asia in general and China in particular. At the time of its founding, Barry Weisberg was both co-director of the Bay Area Institute and associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Throughout the 1960's the IPS was active in the student movement and in the anti-war movement. A number of the leading officials of SDS, the principal organization of the student movement in the 1960's, were fellows or associates of the IPS, and through this means for a number of years IPS exerted influence. It was such fellows and associates of IPS who authored, in 1964, the SDS/PEP support for Lyndon Johnson's presidential candidacy; and in 1965, the SDS statement condemning militant opposition to military conscription. Similarly, the IPS was highly influential in the anti-war movement, as evidenced in the fact that Cora Weiss, wife of Peter Weiss and Secretary of the Samuel Rubin Foundation, was the public spokesman of the MOBE (National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam). (8)

Concerning its role in the mass movements of the 1960's the IPS boasts:

"The Fellows and students of the Institute have also benefited from a wide variety of contacts with the new political energies and organizations of the 1960's, especially with the civil rights and student movements. Indeed, the Institute is perhaps unique in that it has almost simultaneously been called "the intellectual arsenal of the New Left" by two political columnists and "the vanguard of the status quo" by a leader of the student movement. "(9)

IPS was indeed both "the intellectual arsenal of the New Left" and "the vanguard of the status quo". It intervened in the mass movements against revolutionary struggle and against Marxism-Leninism, and was a center for the dissemination of the reactionary ideology of New Leftism in opposition to Marxism- Leninism. And its Fellows and numbers of its students have "benefited" by making careers as professional anti-communist publicists and academicians.

For the past several years, IPS has been advancing a program of social-democratic reform, "a new political program in this country", advocating third party initiatives, and, most recently, explicitly identifying with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the Progressive Alliance. During this period the IPS has launched a weekly tabloid, In These Times. This is social-democracy at work, preparing for the upsurge of the workers ' movement of the 1980's.

Throughout its history the IPS has received its funding from the foundations of the big bourgeoisie. Principal contributors include: the Samuel R. Rubin Foundation, the Stern Family Fund, the Field Foundation. The ample funds provided by the big bourgeoisie are a telling tribute to its character and role. The IPS is an instrument of the big bourgeoisie "in the fight against communism", against Marxism- Leninism and the revolution. One of its many products in the course of this fight was an anti-communist, social-democratic publicist named Barry Weisberg.



(1) On the establishment by the IPS of the Cambridge Institute by IPS fellows Gar Alperovitz and Christopher Jencks, the Bay Area Institute by associate fellow Barry Weisberg, and the Institute for Southern Studies by Sue Thrasher and Howard Romaine, see Raskin, Being and Doing, pp. 419-20, and also the IPS bio-bibliographies which are appended to this report. For IPS editorial influence in Ramparts see the editorial positions occupied from 1966-70 by IPS's Raskin, Kotler, Waskow, Lee Webb, Paul Jacobs, Karl Hess and others. For IPS influence on the editorial policy of other papers, see note (5) below.

(2) For Wadsworth see Who's Who in America (WWA) to 1974/75 ed. He also served on the Council oh Foreign Relations. See also the New York Times (NYT) 7/11/74, p.5; 9/25/60, IV, p. 26; 1/18/61, p. 32;. 4/6/61, p. 22; 9/13/62, p. 38; 4/1/63, p. 58. For Larson see Current Biography,1956; Contemporary Authors and WWA 1966/67 and following. WWA 1972/73 lists him as Director of the Institute for Policy Studies.

(3) The verbatim text of Barnet's statement to the Senate Committee is printed as "The Next Move is Up to Congress" in the Nation, March 13, 1976, pp. 299-301.

(4) On the IPS's programs and organization see The First Three Years 1963-66 (IPS, 1967), and testimony by the IPS council justifying its tax- exempt status in 1972. (Congressional InformationService, S961-2, 1972). On its present size and budget see T.R. Reid in The Washington Post, 1/21/77.

(5) See Working Papers for a New Society, SocialPolicy, and Liberation for instances of this.

(6) See NYT, 2/6/72; Facts on File 1971-72; NYTMagazine, March 9, 1969.

(7) IPS, The First Three Years 1963-66, H. The Research of the Institute, Subsection A. Foreign Policy.

(8) See the accompanying IPS bio-bibliographical material.

(9) IPS, The First Three Years 1963-66, I. The Role of the Institute.

BARRY WEISBERG: Bibliography


Ecocide in Indochina. N. Y.: Harper and Row (Canfield Press), 1970. (in print in 1974, o.p. 1975)


Beyond Repair; the Ecology of Capitalism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. (in print in 1978, o.p. 1979)

Politics of Ecology. Boston: New England Free Press, 1970. (4 page pamphlet reprinted from Liberation, Jan. 1970)

Our Lives Are At Stake: Workers Fight for Healthand Safety; Shell Strike 1973. San Francisco: United Front Press, 1973.

"Raping Alaska: ecology of oil," Ramparts 8 (Jan. 1970) 25-33.

"Telling it like it isn't," Motive 30 (May 1970) 44-

"Offshore oil boom," Nation 212 (Mar. 8, 1971) 294-5.

"Oil and Southeast Asia," Current 129 (May 1971) 47-51. (reprint of Mar. 8, 1971 Nation article)

"Alaska land grab," Space City News 1 (March 13, 1970) 8.

"Oil in Southeast Asia," Kudzu 3 (March 1971) 3.

"Our oil interests in Indochina,'' Peace News 18 (April 16, 1971) 3.

"Oiling Singapore's economy," Pacific News Service (mimeo) 1971.

"The oil beneath Indochina,'' Pacific News Service (mimeo) 1971.

"Letter from Singapore," Nation214 (Jan. 10, 1972).

"Browning of Stockholm; America takes its ecology show abroad," Ramparts 11 (September 1972) 33-40.

"April 22: A one day teach-in is like an all day suck- er,'' Liberation (April 1970) 38-41.

Other Materials:

Articles located in Guardian: March 6, 1971 (oil profits); Feb. 6, 1974; Feb. 13, 1974; March 6, 1974 (energy crisis).

"Social Responsibility in Science" (sound recording), Pacifica Tape Library, 2 cassettes, 1 hr. 50 min., recorded Aug. 1, 1969.

"Science for Vietnam Day, Part 1," (sound recording), Pacifica Tape Library, 1 cassette, 59 min. Sponsor: Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Responsibility. Recorded May 17, 1971, at Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.


Books in Print; OCLC; Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature;. Kehde, The American Left; Alternative Press Index.

SELECTED BIOGRAPHICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES: IPS Fellows, Officers and Associates. See note at the end for source abbreviations.

Richard J. Barnet, 1929-

Co-founder, co-director and spokesman for IPS. Harvard Law; Fellow, Harvard Russian Research Center, Princeton Center for International Studies; advisory positions, State Dept., Dept, of Defense (Kennedy Administration); Deputy Director of Political Research, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, to 1963. (Sources: CA and #)

Who Wants Disarmament? (Intro, by Chester Bowles), Beacon Press, 1960.

Security in Disarmament (with Richard A. Falk), Princeton Center for the Institute for Defense Analysis and contract study for USACDA by Peace Research Institute, 1965.

After 20 Years; Alternatives to the Cold War (with M. Raskin), Random, 1965.

An American Manifesto (with M. Raskin), New American Library, 1970.

Roots of War, Antheneum, 1972.

Global Reach, Simon and Schuster, 1974.

Articles in Atlantic, New Yorker, NY Times and NY Times Magazine, Nation, New Republic,

Journal of the American Society for InternationalLaw, Saturday Review, World Politics,and others.

Marcus G. Raskin

Co-founder and co-director of IPS U. Chicago l)aw; Legis. Council to 12 Democratic Party congressmen, 1958-61; Staff member, National Security Council, 1961-62; Member, U.S. Disarmament delegation to Geneva, 1962; Consultant, White House Office of Science and Technology, 1963-65. (Sources: CA and #)

Congressional Liberal Papers (Staff editor, 1958-1961).

Viet-Nam Reader (with Bernard Fall), Random House, 1965.

Being and Doing, Random House, 1971.

The Federal Budget and Social Reconstruction, Transaction, 1978.

Contributing Editor, Ramparts 1965-68. Numerous other editorial positions.

Milton Kotler, 1935- Resident Fellow, IPS 1963-74.

"Return to the Neighborhood" (audiotape), Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1969. Neighborhood Government; the Local Foundations ofPolitical Life Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.

Handbook on Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, 1976. Contributing editor Ramparts and other periodicals.

Earl C. Ravenal

Fellow, IPS 1970-71 (Source: #); IPS Conference, Sept. 1970, ed. Peace with China?

Director, Asian Division, Office of Secretary of Defense, 1967-69; Director, Interagency Program Analysis of Korea, 1968-69.

Secretary of Defense Memorandum to the President on Asian Strategy and Force Structure, 1969. Atlantis Lost; U.S. -European Relations After theCold War (with James Chance), Council on Foreign Relations book, NY University Press, 1976.

The Strategic Lessons of Vietnam, Woodrow Wilson International Center, June 29, 1975.

Mitchell Rogovin, 1930-

Council, IPS 1972-74 (WP 10/10/73, p. 26; WP 2/26/74; CIS 1974, S961-2).

Internal Revenue Service 1958-66; Assistant Attorney General, 1966-69; General Council, Common Cause, 1970-75; Council on Foreign Relations, 1975; Special Council to the Director, Central Intelligence Agency, 1975-. (Source: M-H, 1979, and CIS 1975).

Peter Weiss

Chairman of IPS (NYT 2/6/72).

Lawyer; vice president of Rubin Foundation (a principle source of IPS funds); Lawyers Committee on American Policy toward Vietnam; Law Center for Constitutional Rights; Southeast Asia trip with Barnet and Cora Weiss relative to POW's; Paris meetings with Vietnam delegation with Barnet, 1972; N. Y. State delegate to 1968 presidential convention, protest march leader; 1971 Bronx councilman. Cora Weiss, spokeswoman National Mobilization Committee Against the War in Vietnam; Secretary of Rubin Foundation.

Peter Weiss, "The air attacks on the DRV by the USA on 21 Nov. 1970" in Malcolm Caldwell (ed.), American Presence in South East Asia (Singapore, Island Publishers, 1971). (Sources: NYT 1969-72)

Orlando Letelier

Director, IPS/Transnational Institute.

Defense Minister for Allende; Chilean ambassador to U.S.; arrested Sept. 1973, exiled Sept. 1974; killed in Do C. Sept. 21, 1976 by bomb along with Ronni Moffitt (also of IPS). (Sources: Facts on File, NYT)

Chile, Economic Freedom and Political Repression,Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, Transnational Institute pamphlet, 1976.

Speeches and Writing by and about Orlando Letelier, National Coordinating Center in Solidarity with Chile, 1976.

The International Economic Order (with Michael Moffit), Transnational Institute, 1977.

Orlando Letelier and Ronni Karpen Moffitt (articles, speeches, prayers, poems, photographs), IPS, 1977.

Arthur I. Waskow, 1933-

Peace Research Institute senior staff 1961-63; Resident Fellow IPS 1963-.

U.S. House, legislative assistant, 1959-61; "old guard SDSer in IPS" -S; Sponsored Radical Education Project with Raskin and others; SDS 1965-? (#)

The Debate on Thermonuclear Strategy, Heath, 1965.

From Race Riot to Sit-in ; a study in the connections between conflict and violence, Doubleday, 1966. Community Control of the Police, Transaction, 1969.

Bush is Burning; Macmillan, 1971.

Also numerous articles and pamphlets for SDS, Southern Student Organizing Committee, Friends Service Committee, Our Generation, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, IPS, numerous national bourgeois periodicals. (S)

The following list are early and leading figures in SDS who, along with Waskow and Raskin, were associated with IPS:

Robb Burlage (Resident Fellow IPS)

Jeremy Brecher (Resident Fellow IPS)

Michael Maccoby (Resident Fellow IPS)

Al Haber (SDS's first president, 1960-62; ERAP;

Founder of Radical Education Project)

Tom Hayden Rich Margolies

Lee Webb (presently heads IPS/Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies)

(Sources: S and 3 Years)

The following were participants in a 1965 IPS conference on Youth in Politics:

From SDS: Marvin Holloway, Paul Cowan, John Maher

From SNCC: Robert Parris, Donna Richards, Courtland Cox From SSOC: Howard Romaine, Ed Hamlett, Gene Guerrero

From NCUP: Tom Hayden, Phil Hutchings, Terry Jefferson, Mrs. Bessie Smith, Connie Brown From Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party: Frank Smith, Walter Tillow, Michael Thelwell

(Source: 3 Years)


CA Contemporary Authors, vols. 1-80 (Gale, 1962- 1978)

CIS Congressional Information Service, year indicated

DAS Directory of American Scholars, 6th ed. (Bowker, 1974)

M-H Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, 1979 NYT New York Times, date indicated S Kirpatrick Sale, SDS (Vintage, 1974)

WP Washington Post, date indicated

WWA Who's Who in America, years indicated

3 Yrs The First Three Years 1963-1966 (IPS 1967)

# Indicates that the information source was from "notes on contributors" or similar author sketch accompanying book or article by the subject.

All articles or magazine contributions referred to were identified through Reader's Guide to

Periodical Literature (1960- ), Social Science Index (1960- ), Alternative Press Index (1969- 74 scattered). New York Times Information Bank and New York Times Index (1960- ) were sources for newspaper citations. The Ohio College Library Center (OCLC) data base was the source for published books. End.

[Back to Top]

From the Writings of Barry Weisberg



"... the patterns of life in which most of us partake are not much different than those of the ruling class0" "What has been happening to poor whites and blacks for several hundred years, what America has done to the Vietnamese, America is now doing to its own population, en masse."



"The critical task today is to raise the issue of pollution/destruction, imperialistic styles of consumption, and of overpopulation to a political status in order to reveal an arena of political opposition in America which the Left has hitherto ignored."

"Thus the development of an ecological politics on a practical level may provide the only framework in which the alienated and oppressed can achieve true liberation."

"The true origin of what has yet to become an authentic movement is in the People's Park episode, in militant actions against corporate despoilers (including sabotage) and in the private as well as public, attempts to create ecologically sound lives."



This is the same line as Beyond Repair, except more naked. The changes for Beyond Repair are:


1) overpopulation is dropped

2) "life style" is dropped, though the line of overconsumption is there in more veiled form


3) the open class stand of the upper petty bourgeoisie is dropped

4) instead, the proletariat -- who did not exist in 1970 -- appears, but as passe.

These changes are important to note because the basic line and class stand continue, but the issues of Marxism and the proletariat are taken up as window dressing.

Note that "ecological politics" is posed in opposition to the issues being addressed by the mass movement at that time.

* * * * * * *




"There is considerable infantile worship and illusion about China amongst the Left today, but this must not blind us to the deeper lessons of Chinese Communism." (p. 149)

"... such nations (Soviet Union, Cuba, China-- ed.) underwent various forms of revolutionary upheaval under social and economic conditions which bear not the slightest resemblance to those of present-day America." (p. 167)



"Much of Marxist thought today clings to that historical period in which Marx formulated his original teachings, without realizing in fact the dawning of conditions which must of necessity temper the contemporary Marxist view of history." (p. 161)

"This vision entails a view of historical development which could not foresee the possibility that the realm of necessity might be incorporated into the realm of freedom within the developed capitalist world." (p. 161)

"In other words, Marx did not envision a situation in which the necessity of scarcity might be eliminated before the elimination of capitalism. ... Such a possibility is today evident with the advent of a liberating technology in which the conditions which for thousands of years required alienating labor might be abolished." (p. 161)

"Such a historical reality would call into question many of the most fundamental conceptions of contemporary Marxism...." (p. 162)

"A provocative critique of Marxist thought from a post-scarcity perspective is 'Listen, Marxist!'... "

(p. 188)



"The technological innovation of the present age has the most profound effect upon traditional class distinctions.... The present level of material abundance within a large sector of capitalist society has today incorporated the very demands put forth in the 'Communist Manifesto'." (p. 162)

"The traditional proposition of class as the agent of transition from a society of class to a classless society anticipates neither the effect of affluence and consumption in generating revolutionary consciousness nor the extent to which the division of labor itself would proceed...." (p. 162)

"This is not to deny the historical importance of the proletariat, but to root the consciousness of the proletariat within our own historical moment." (P. 163)

"To date, workers' struggles are predominantly underclass, led by black workers." (p. 164)



"We are taught to think of revolution as a turn of the switch, a massive and sudden upheaval, as an overnight affair. Immediately.the cultural organs of the Reader's Digest mentality provide images of the Soviet Union or Cuba. In rare cases, even China. And yet such nations underwent various forms of revolutionary upheaval under social and economic conditions which bear not the slightest resemblance to those of present-day America." (p. 167)

"Yet today throughout the capitalist world the realm of freedom -- freedom from scarcity--constitutes an entirely new historical project, connecting the events of May-June 1968 in France to the People's Park. At such moments liberation becomes not the object of struggle but the struggle itself. The imagination of rebellion replaces the illusion of philanthropy." (pp. 164-5)



"Such a historical reality would call into question many of the most fundamental conceptions of contemporary Marxism -- a theory predicated on and propagated under the assumption that the hierarchical nature of human society would be an inevitable necessity given the conditions of scarcity, such that the road to Communism would require the hierarchical organization of 'a dictatorship of the proletariat'." (p. 162)

"These events which dominate the history of our age challenge the Marxist view that power must be transferred from one class to another, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat which somehow would lead to the withering away of the state. The maintenance of the power nexus was rooted in a view of history which did not anticipate a situation in which scarcity, the very justification for that hierarchy, might be eliminated before the arrival of Communism -- the abolition of both private property and alienation. " (p. 162)

"What is at stake today everywhere is not simply the transfer of power from the hands of the present few to the hands of another few. We must be concerned with the elimination of the power nexus itself, in all its everyday manifestations." (p. 167)


"Such movements within the United States suggest the reconstitution of limits, of boundaries. This will not and cannot be achieved through a centralized mechanism, whether new Federal regulation or a national party. Further centralization today can only serve to further destroy the limited natural and social diversity which remains." (p. 166)


"The works of Lewis Mumford over a fifty-year period stand unrivaled as a definitive study of the origins and development of technological society. '' (p. 185)

"The technological innovation of the present age has the most profound effect upon traditional class distinctions. The necessity of class struggle was formulated in an age when the primary form of colonization was the individual relationship to the means of production. The conditions of the nineteenth century focused attention upon the harsh inequities of the industrial revolution. Today, production for the sake of production finds its complement in consumption for the sake of consumption. The present level of material abundance within a large sector of capitalist society has today incorporated the very demands put forth in the 'Communist Manifesto'." (p. 162)


"What is at stake today everywhere is not simply the transfer of power from the hands of the present few to the hands of another few. We must be concerned with the elimination of the power nexus itself, in all its everyday manifestations.

"The dimensions of political government must be tailored exactly to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem in which it exists. The parameters of this approach have already been sketched, by Lewis Mumford in Technics and Civilization, and Ian McHarg, in Design with Nature.

"But here again the prerequisite for such ecological homework is the established authority and legitimacy of the neighborhood or multineighborhood unit." (p. 171)

"The variety of communes, neighborhood corporations, and regional proposals now abundant within the United States are the first primitive attempts at self-determination. They are important for the questions they raise rather than the answers they provide.

"But most important, they provide the political momentum which is absolutely required if ecological and social balance is to be achieved. They provide a working arena in which the issues of competition, scale, technology, and innovative government can be developed. In no sense can they be considered liberated zones. For social liberation cannot be achieved without biological liberation. '' (p. 180)

"Few have considered seriously the implications of autonomy and self-rule in its full dimension or begun to speculate about the implications of such developments for new forms of government and association, the possibilities for authentic forms of technology and the proper limitations in regard to scale and diversity. Few have seriously contemplated the full interdependence between political, economic, and ecological requirements. And most important, few could have imagined but a decade ago the remarkable profusion of such sentiment and experimentation." (p. 170)



"Perhaps in miniature the People's Park in Berkeley was a step in the United States analogous to the events of May-June in France. The struggle to build and defend the People's Park in 1969 was the result of the continual incursion upon the youth culture of Berkeley by the business community's plans for modernization.... Then, spontaneously, a group of people formed in Berkeley and began to convert an open lot, occasionally used for parking, into a much- needed park.... The creation of the People's Park involved people from various sectors of the community.... The park represented the necessity of people to design a community which reflected the organic needs and purposes of the people who lived there. This effort sought to reassert balance in the Berkeley community, between people and asphalt, open space and congestion, quiet and noise, diversity and monotony." (pp. 165-6)

"Since the People's Park, the Berkeley community has been converted into a vast experiment in self- determination. A group known as the People's Architects began to initiate a community design process for land being vacated for mass transit construction. Numerous food and service cooperatives have been developed. The Food Conspiracy now claims to serve between three and six thousand people. More recently, an initiative for the community control of the police was put on the ballot." (p. 166)

"There are many other tactics which might be adopted which could tie together existing sentiment to local political power. One such issue is the workweek. At present there are over one hundred companies nationwide which are experimenting with a four-day week and a ten-hour day. Some are actually developing a three-day week and a twelve-hour day. Labor argues in this context for spreading out employment, that is for less hours and higher wages. Could such proposals on the part of unions be tied to the needs for community development? Could part of the bargaining package of a union involve a stipulation that companies situated in a defined community should curtail the working hours of production, maintain the present wage scale, and contribute those hours in some form to a community development corporation in which people began to be paid by local businessmen for the reconstruction of the local community? In other words, could a method be found through labor to require a business to invest part of its earnings back into the welfare of the community in which it is situated? This is one example of scores which could be negotiated through labor contracts. Already softie unions have proposed and secured pollution limitations as part of the bargaining contract." (pp. 179-80)

"Many such proposals today could be a rallying point around which a number of local or community groups could begin to consider primitive forms of cooperation or confederation into regional bodies. The consciousness of this necessity is already widespread among certain sectors of the society, and perhaps received its most publicized attention in the 1969 New York mayoral campaign of Norman Mailer and Jimmy Breslin where they campaigned around power to the neighborhoods and New York City as a fifty-first state. (p. 180)



"The practice of the twentieth century is rich with the experiment of self-determination and workers' control. While the nineteenth century, except for the Paris Commune, was a time for theory, ours is a time for practice, leading to a higher level of theory. Given the variety of experiments, little integrated information is available.

"The experiments of Europe, including Israel, have three basic characteristics. The first can be seen in the communautes des travails which developed in France subsequent to World War H. Essentially these forms developed a cooperative ownership of the industrial plant and the democratic participation of workers in the management of production. In Yugoslavia, the forms of workers' self-management, while often not as adequate in terms of self-reliance as the term suggests, have provided valuable lessons regarding the different levels of government control and the process of self-government.

"Within both the French and the Yugoslav models the most important shortcoming has been the failure to fully integrate the ecological, political, and economic aspects of social life. In Israel, within the kibbutz and moshave, this has been attempted on a magnitude achieved nowhere else in the Western world. This interplay is critical to several of the more significant issues which face such microsocialist experiments. Hierarchy between political, economic, and ecological considerations can only be abolished once these jurisdictions begin to blur, begin to synthesize into an entirely authentic form of self-rule, where political and biological principles are considered interdependent. Self-determination will require, in a decentralized context, an adequate and mutually supportive network of basic skills and services which promote the maximum diversification of function, role, and participation in the collective struggle. The prior example of 'multiple use' in China illustrated this concern.

"The Asian models of decentralization in North Vietnam, North Korea, or China are motivated by a relatively low level of industrialization as compared to the West. While the scale of their experiment is quite unlike that of the United States in terms of industrial output, the forms of socialist industrial management they have created include methods applicable to any industrial situation. Moreover they have demonstrated that decentralization and self-reliance, rather than being a burden to production, can surpass former levels of centralized productive capacity, because production is considered an ideological, not mechanical, task. " (pp. 156-7)

"The examples cited from the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea can only begin to illustrate the basic ecological stability of socialist development." (p. 159)

"Gurley identifies the basic components of Maoist economic development as 'central planning, public ownership of industries, and agricultural cooperatives and communes'. Because China is presently striving to increase production rather than limit output, questions about investment versus consumption, trade, the allocation of material inputs, and prices are basically determined by the state. However, within this context a great deal of decentralization and diversification occurs. This is because unlike capitalist development, material output is but a means to an end, not the end itself." (p. 150)

"One illustration of the implications of this view is in the Chinese principle of 'multiple use', which is the guiding factor of Chinese industrial development. The notion of 'multiple use' manifests the Chinese concern for decentralization, diversification, and the nonspecialization of human and material development. " (pp. 151-2)

"The Eastern world view departs radically from that of the West regarding man's relationship to nature. The domination of nature has never been a primary occupation of the Chinese people, as it has of Europeans or Americans." (p,155) End.

[Back to Top]

Revolutionary Rally in Defense of the Purity of Marxism-Leninism and the Principles of Proletarian Internationalism!

(The following article is reprinted from People's Canada Daily News, organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), March 16, 1979.)

Today, the imperialists and social-imperialists and the revisionists and opportunists of all hues and all reactionaries are making deafening noise against Marxism-Leninism and against the revolution and socialism. Together, from their own particular angle, with equal hatred and fear of the spectre of communism which is haunting them, the U.S. imperialists, Soviet social-imperialists, Chinese social- imperialists and other imperialists and social-imperialists and all their hirelings are trying to oppose and discredit communism and the ideology of the proletariat and the revolution, Marxism-Leninism, in order to push their own aggressive and reactionary interests. ''Communists at war...!" yell the U.S. imperialists; ''Expansionism and great-power chauvinism of China...!" croak the Soviet social-imperialists: "Soviet social-imperialism, the main culprit... !", cry the Chinese social-imperialists from the rooftops. Whether it is the question of the invasion of Vietnam by Chinese social-imperialism with its fascist logic of ''punitive action" in order to "teach a lesson", or it is the question of the toppling of the reactionary clique of Pol Pot in Cambodia or the question of the struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples or the question of the struggle of the peoples of Africa or the question of the revolution and socialism, and, more particularly, the question of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, the U.S. imperialists, the Soviet social-imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists and other imperialists and all their hirelings, are causing maximum confusion, telling lies and creating an atmosphere to convince the proletariat and peoples of all lands that there is no way out of the moribund capitalist system and no way to stop aggression, war and fascism. "Prolong the life of moribund imperialism... !" is the war cry of all the imperialists and social-imperialists and reactionaries of the world.

Imperialism is moribund, it is parasitic and is the last stage of capitalism, the stage at which the contradictions within this system bring the proletariat to social revolution, as pointed out by Lenin a long time ago. Since then, continuous uprisings of the proletariat and the oppressed peoples and nations have taken place against imperialism, and socialism, as an advanced system, has come into being. But imperialism does not die on its own. In its decadence, it devises various means of perpetuating itself, prolonging its existence. When the proletariat in Russia overthrew the bourgeoisie through the Great October Revolution in 1917 and embarked on the socialist road, imperialism organized intervention, and when that failed it carried on its sabotage through spies and through revisionism and opportunism of all hues. When all these attempts failed, it egged on the Hitlerite Nazis to wipe socialism off the face of the earth. When the oppressed nations overthrew colonialism from the majority of the countries in various parts of the world, it devised the method of neo-colonial plunder and exploitation. U.S. imperialism emerged as the "gendarme" and as the "defender of the free world" from communism. It took upon itself to organize reactionary coups, commit armed aggression, float reactionaries and organize nuclear blackmail against the freedom and liberty of the people and against the revolution and socialism. It recruited Tito as its Trojan Horse in the people's democracies and set upon the nefarious task of sabotaging the socialist camp. Khrushchov and later Brezhnev and Kosygin came into being as the enemies of the revolution and socialism from within the former socialist Soviet Union and collaborated with U.S. imperialism against the freedom and liberty of the people and against the revolution and socialism and contended with U.S. imperialism for world hegemony. They emerged as "socialists" in words but fascists and imperialists in deeds. Thus, along with U.S. imperialism and other imperialist powers and reactionaries, Soviet social-imperialism also began using military threats and nuclear blackmail. It occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968, carried on subversion of the revolution and the national liberation movement and, by using Cuban and other satellite troops, it occupied Angola, interfered on the side of the fascist Derg in Ethiopia and supported reactionary regimes against the just struggle, and aspirations of the peoples for genuine independence, liberation and social progress. With the increasing collusion and contention between U.S. imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism, there also began to emerge in China the counterrevolutionary line of collaborating with U.S. imperialism and other imperialists and reactionaries, ostensibly to oppose the "main enemy" -- Soviet-social imperialism. The U.S. imperialists, the Titoites, the Soviet social-imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists and other imperialists and reactionaries, dished out their own version of anti-communist, anti-working class and anti-people ideologies in order to drown in blood the just struggle of the proletariat for revolution and socialism and for genuine national and social liberation.

But, in spite of all the activities of the imperialists and reactionaries, the proletariat and the oppressed peoples never gave up their struggle. Nay more, they fought them all along and, despite setbacks and zigzags in the proletarian movement for emancipation and in the national liberation movement, the people marched on. The Party of Labor of Albania and other genuine Marxist-Leninists fought Titoite revisionism, the revisionism of Khrushchov and Brezhnev, the " Eurocommunists" and the Chinese revisionists. Socialist Albania forged ahead under the leadership of the PLA with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head and defended the great and powerful doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on the revolution and socialism. In spite of all the perfidious and fascist activities of the imperialists, social-imperialists and reactionaries for over 62 years, socialism remains the only next stage of social development. Socialism exists in Albania and the longing for it is seething like a. volcano in the hearts and minds of the proletarians and oppressed peoples of all lands. They know, as the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties all over the world teach them, that the revolution and socialism is the only way out of the crisis and that the only doctrine which guides the revolution and the building of socialism is the doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. The glorious revolution of the Iranian proletariat and people has shaken the international bourgeoisie to the core because it has shown that the proletariat and people will never accept imperialism, exploitation, war, pestilence, hunger and death. Over 62 years of history have shown that moribund imperialism has failed to wipe out socialism, the proletarian revolution and the national liberation movement and the deep drive of the oppressed peoples for freedom, liberty and progress.

Faced with an impossible situation in which the objective conditions keep on becoming increasingly ripe for revolution, the contradictions inherent in the imperialist and social-imperialist systems keep on tearing these systems apart, bringing to the fore the class outbursts, and, faced with the situation in which the genuine Marxist-Leninist forces are gathering strength and providing leadership to the proletariat and oppressed masses, and in which the millions of proletarians and oppressed masses have thrown themselves into the struggle, the imperialists and social-imperialists and reactionaries of the world are creating their charade, their drama, to cause confusion amongst the revolutionary forces, to cause splits and divisions and liquidate the revolutionary movement and to generate pessimism and disillusionment. The latest occasion they are using to attack the forces of the revolution and socialism is the Chinese social-imperialist aggression against Viet Nam.

The U.S. imperialists, the Soviet social-imperialists, the Chinese social-imperialists, the Vietnamese leadership, the Pol Pot reactionary clique, other imperialists and reactionaries and their hirelings are all pitted against the forces of the revolution and socialism. U.S. imperialism justifies the Chinese fascist aggression against Viet Nam under the pretext that the Vietnamese leadership attacked Cambodia. The Soviet social-imperialists cry wolf and shed crocodile tears about the Chinese fascist aggression when they themselves are one of the main contenders for world hegemony. The Vietnamese leadership is calling upon progressive public opinion to support their cause while they themselves ally with and support Soviet social- imperialism and the reactionary forces in many lands. When Mrs. Gandhi declared the "National Emergency" in 1975, the Vietnamese leadership supported her and opposed the just struggle of the people of India. Many other examples can be given to show that the Vietnamese leadership which is calling for so much support, has not supported the struggle of the progressive people, and does not base its foreign policy on the principles of proletarian internationalism. When the Pol Pot reactionary clique issued calls for support, its deeds towards the Cambodian people and its total opposition to the revolution and socialism stood out glaringly as did the sentiment that they be punished a hundred and a thousand times for their crimes against the proletariat and people along with the U.S. imperialists, Soviet social-imperialists, Chinese social-imperialists, and other imperialists and reactionaries of the world. While these imperialists and social-imperialists and reactionaries quarrel and fight amongst themselves on the basis of their own interests, it is the people of the world who pay the bill. It is the heroic people of Viet Nam and Cambodia who are paying the bill for the crimes of the Chinese social-imperialists and the Soviet social-imperialists and U.S. imperialists.

Our Party clearly stands on the side of the people. We support the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people against the Chinese fascist aggression, but not the conciliation and collaboration of the Vietnamese leadership with Soviet social-imperialism and other revisionists and opportunists. Our Party clearly supports the struggle of the people of Cambodia against the reactionary Pol Pot clique, but we do not support any occupation of Cambodia by any foreign expeditionary forces. Our Party says clearly it is not the "communists at war..." but it is the war of the imperialists and social-imperialists and the reactionaries against the peoples of the world and communism and we must resolutely and without any reservations support the peoples and defend communism and the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism.

The genuine Marxist-Leninist parties in the world are the only truly revolutionary force which fights for genuine social and national liberation and for freedom and progress. The Party of Labor of Albania with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head is the foremost genuine Marxist-Leninist Party. This is why the imperialists and social-imperialists and reactionaries of the world try to drown the voice of the PLA in eery silence but make a lot of clamor about the phoney Marxist-Leninists and "communists". The imperialists and reactionaries are extremely afraid of the genuine Marxist-Leninist parties because only these parties speak the truth and, even though small and relatively weak, only they provide revolutionary consciousness and organization to the proletariat and oppressed masses in the struggle for true national and social liberation.

Our Party has invited fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties to the rally in Montreal so that the proletariat and progressive forces of our country can hear the voice of Marxism-Leninism in order to smash the imperialist and social-imperialist counter-revolutionary propaganda. Our Party warmly invites all genuinely progressive and democratic forces to come and participate in this important rally.



[Poster (with program) for the rally.]

This defeat of the Shah's army was so unexpected that all the calculations of the U.S. and Soviet imperialists proved false. Apd once more, our people defeated imperialism. The victory of the enormous popular movement brought with it a revolution which is a great lesson for the proletariat and the peoples of Iran.

In this revolution, the Iranian prole'ariat fought alongside the bourgeoisie against imperialism, and in this struggle, as a result of its political and organizational weakness caused by the absence of a strong party to lead it, the proletariat was not able to assume the leadership of the revolution; this is why this leadership fell into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which does not prevent this bourgeois democratic revolution from being an integral part of the proletarian revolution.

But the lesson that the working class and all the workers of Iran have drawn from this struggle has been to grasp the enormous damage caused to the workers' movement by the Khrushchovite and Maoist revisionists over the last twenty years, to grasp what PTftat service these revisionists pave to the

[Back to Top]